CareFusion 303, Inc.
[2023] APO 17
•30 March 2023
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
CareFusion 303, Inc. [2023] APO 17
Patent Application: 2020210162
Title:Medication preparation queue
Patent Applicant: CareFusion 303, Inc.
Delegate:Greg Powell
Decision Date: 30 March 2023
Hearing Date: 14 February 2023, by Video Conference. Further submissions filed 24 February 2023
Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner objection – whether claims are for a manner of manufacture – substance of the invention is a scheme – claims are not for a manner of manufacture – no patentable subject matter identified in the specification – application refused – issue estoppel
Representation: Patent attorneys for the applicant: Michelle Catto, Manuel Schmidt and Rowena Wilson of FB Rice Pty Ltd
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2020210162
Title:Medication preparation queue
Patent Applicant: CareFusion 303, Inc.
Date of Decision: 30 March 2023
DECISION
The claims of the application, as proposed to be amended, do not define a manner of manufacture.
I do not see any subject matter in the body of the specification from which valid claims could be drafted to overcome this finding.
I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION
BACKGROUND
Patent application 2020210162 (the present application) was filed by CareFusion 303, Inc. (the applicant) on 27 July 2020. It was filed as a divisional application of patent application 2014268828 (the parent application), shortly after the applicant requested to be heard on the parent application. The parent application was filed as a PCT application (PCT/US2014/038497) on 16 May 2014. Ultimately, the present application claims priority from US application 13/901501 filed on 23 May 2013.
The present application was filed after 15 April 2013. The fate of the present application is therefore governed by the Patents Act 1990 (the Act) as amended by the Intellectual Property Laws Amendment (Raising the Bar) Act 2012. These amendments included the introduction of new subsection 49(1). Under this provision, I must accept the present application if satisfied on the balance of probabilities that it complies with the requirements of the Act. If I am not so satisfied, I can refuse the present application.
A first examination report was issued on 22 September 2021 raising objections in relation to manner of manufacture and inventive step. The applicant responded to the first examination report on 28 March 2022 by way of written submissions and proposed amendments to the description and claims. A second examination report issued on 3 May 2022 maintaining only the objection to manner of manufacture. Another response was filed on 14 September 2022 with further arguments and amendments to the description and claims. On 21 September 2022 a third examination report issued maintaining the manner of manufacture objection. On the same day, the applicant requested to be heard. On 7 February 2023 the applicant filed written submissions (“written submissions”) for the hearing along with another set of amendments to the claims. Following the hearing, and as signalled by them during the hearing, the applicant filed another further set of amendments to the claims on 24 February 2023. Another set of amendments to the claims followed on 28 February 2023 following a conversation between the applicant and me.
Seven amendment items have been proposed. No objection was raised by the examiner to the allowability of the amendments of the first four items. I do not see any issues around allowability with the fifth and sixth items, but I have a concern with the allowability of the seventh item, as discussed later in this decision. Nevertheless, in this decision I am considering the specification as proposed to be amended by the statements of proposed amendments up to and including proposed amendment seven filed on 28 February 2023. Wherever I refer to the specification, it is a reference to the specification as proposed to be amended.
Finally, while the final date for acceptance of the present application was 22 September 2022, the time for gaining acceptance is extended by 3 months from the date of the present decision (see reg 13.4(1)(g)), or longer if appropriate (see reg 13.4(3)).
Parent application
As already noted at [1] above, the applicant requested to be heard on the parent application, and the parent application was the subject of a decision by a Deputy Commissioner of Patents. In that decision (CareFusion 303, Inc.[1] – parent decision) the Deputy Commissioner found that the claims of the parent application did not define a manner of manufacture. In deciding that the claimed invention was not a manner of manufacture, the Deputy Commissioner noted (for claim 1):
“There are thus some considerations suggesting that the contribution is a system, and others suggesting that it is a scheme that is implemented on a system. I note that it is the details of the scheme that are stressed in the description indicating that the locus of the ingenuity lies more in the scheme for ordering the orders than in the system. However, there is the potential for a practical and useful result of the kind that is recognised by the patent system. The invention defined by claim 1 is potentially linked to this result, but the result is not guaranteed. Consequently, the weight that I give to this consideration is minimal.”[2]
[1] [2021] APO 11
[2] Parent decision at [70]
While the Deputy Commissioner noted that other claimed aspects possibly provided a better probability that the practical and useful result could be achieved, he stated that this was speculation and was not assured. Consequently, he concluded:
“In relation to the invention defined by all claims the contribution to the invention is a scheme, which is not a manner of manufacture.
This conclusion follows because the weight given to the practical and useful result is not sufficient to disturb the balance of considerations. I will allow the applicant the opportunity to propose amendments in line with this decision that might more strongly link the claims to the practical and useful result.”[3]
[3] Parent decision at [74]–[75]
The applicant did not avail themselves of that opportunity, and the parent application lapsed for failure to gain acceptance.
I observe that the description, claims and drawings of the present application as filed are essentially identical to that of the description, claims and drawings of the parent application as filed.
Related applications
I also observe that, at the same time as the parent decision was issued, 3 other decisions issued for patent applications 2014268799, 2014268801 and 2014268829 directed to related aspects of the present invention[4]. Like the parent decision, the finding in each one of the ‘799 decision, the ‘801 decision, and the ‘829 decision was that the claimed invention was not a manner of manufacture. Also, like the parent decision, the applicant was provided with an opportunity to file amendments. The applicant did not take that opportunity for patent applications 2014268799 and 2014268801, but did for 2014268829. A further adverse report issued for 2014268829 objecting that the claims did not define a manner of manufacture. Following this report, the applicant requested to be heard again. In my decision on 2014268829[5], I found that the claims were still not directed to a manner of manufacture and refused the application. I observe that, while there are, of course, differences, there is considerable overlap between the specification of 2014268829 and the present application.
[4] CareFusion 303, Inc. [2021] APO 9 (‘799 decision), CareFusion 303, Inc. [2021] APO 10 (‘801 decision), CareFusion 303, Inc. [2021] APO 12 (‘829 decision)
[5] CareFusion 303, Inc. [2022] APO 40 (‘829 2nd decision)
As with the present application, the applicant filed divisional applications from 2014268799, 2014268801 and 2014268829 (being 2020205335, 2020207772 and 2020210161 respectively ) either at the same time as, or shortly after, requesting to be heard on those applications. Each divisional application has been examined and each has lapsed for failing to overcome, within the prescribed period, an objection that the claims did not define a manner of manufacture.
Furthermore, I note that the applicant filed a divisional application (2022235592) from the present application on the same day as they requested a hearing on the present application.
The invention as described
As also set out in the parent decision, the invention generally relates to a system for managing the preparation and distribution of medications from a pharmacy:
“The present disclosure generally relates to medication distribution, and, in particular, relates to systems and methods for managing preparation and delivery of a medication in a healthcare facility.”[6]
The distribution involves the use of computers. The specification notes several aspects of the invention.
[6] Specification at [0001]
One aspect of the invention involves determining whether an order for a medication can be filled using returned medication. This determination is carried out by a processor:
“The one or more processors is configured to execute the instructions to receive information indicative of an order for medication for a patient from an electronic data feed, and determine whether the order for medication for the patient can be filled with a returned (‘retrieved’ or ‘retrievable’) medication. The one or more processors is also configured to provide a notification to fill the order with the returned medication when the determination indicates the order can be filled with a returned medication, and provide a notification to fill the order by preparing the medication when the determination indicates a returned medication is not available to fill the order.”[7]
[7] Ibid at [0005]
Another aspect of the invention involves ordering a queue of orders for medication, based on a variety of factors. This determination is carried out by a processor:
“The one or more processors is configured to execute the instructions to receive information indicative of an order for medication for a patient from an electronic data feed, and determine a position in a virtual queue configured to display multiple medication orders to be filled based on at least one of an estimated amount of time to prepare the medication, an estimated amount of time to deliver the medication to a delivery location, an estimated time at which the medication will be needed for administration to a patient at the delivery location, a delivery deadline for the medication, a degree of urgency for delivery of the medication, a type of the medication, or a component of the medication. The one or more processors is also configured to execute the instructions to provide an indicator of the order for medication for display at the position in the virtual queue.”[8]
[8] Ibid at [0008]
A further aspect involves both determining whether an order can be filled using returned medication and ordering a queue. Of particular focus for the present invention, is the statement that:
“… the order for the medication is provided for display at a position in the virtual queue associated with another medication having a same type or a same component as the medication. The one or more processors is yet configured to receive an image or barcode identifying a component used to formulate the medication, provide the image or barcode to a person responsible for verifying the medication is filled using the component, and receive an input indicating the person has verified the medication has been filled using the component. The one or more processors is also configured to provide an indication that the order for the medication is ready for delivery to the patient.[9]
[9] Ibid at [0011]
The specification refers to systems, methods and machine-readable storage media in relation to each aspect of the invention. The system generally includes a display screen, a memory that stores instructions, and a processor that executes instructions. Otherwise, the system carries out the steps of the method. The machine-readable storage medium carries instructions that cause the processor to carry out the steps of the method.
Figure 3 shows the process for managing the filling of medication orders. The process is self-explanatory from the figure:
While not stated explicitly, step 311 includes within its scope providing the image to a person remote from the pharmacy preparing the medication and step 312 includes that person remotely verifying the filling of the order.
As was noted in the parent decision, the system that carries out the process is described in very generic terms. Figure 2 shows the general system:
In this figure the client 110 is associated with the delivery of the medication to the patient (see step 313 of Figure 3) and the server 130 is associated with the pharmacy preparing the medication. The client 110 could be, for example, a desktop or mobile computer associated with the delivery pickup area, or, as another example, a tablet computer, or smartphone associated with the delivery person.
While the description states[10] that the client and server can be implemented using hardware or a combination of software and hardware, Figure 5 is a block diagram of generic features said to be an example computer system for the client and server:
[10] Ibid at [0068]
The system 500 is exemplified in the most general of terms. Several very well-known examples are listed as possibilities for processor 502 such as a general-purpose microprocessor, a microcontroller, a Field Programmable Gate Array (FPGA), “or any other suitable entity that can perform calculations or other manipulations of information”[11]. Similarly, memory 504 is exemplified with many examples of a “suitable storage device”[12], data storage device 506 could be a magnetic disk or optical disk, and input/output module 510 “can be any input/output module”[13]. The communications module 512 is exemplified as various networking interface cards, the input devices 514 include a keyboard and a pointing device, and other items that “provide for interaction with a user”[14], and output devices 516 include display devices such as a LED, CRT, or LCD screens. There is no further detail of the system in the specification.
[11] Ibid at [0069]
[12] Ibid at [0070]
[13] Ibid at [0073]
[14] Ibid at [0073]
The specification provides examples of the operation of the system by reference to how it could be used to prepare different medications. The examples assist in understanding the concepts set out in the figures, and essentially step through the process with reference to the name of specific medications. The examples do not provide precise instructions as how to create or use the systems.
A first example explains how to prepare an anaesthetic intravenous (IV) solution. According to the specification, the pharmacy stores anaesthetic drugs and fluids. The anaesthetic and fluids are mixed to produce the anaesthetic IV solution. A medication identification such as a bar code is attached to the package containing the IV solution which is then delivered to the patient. The pharmacy server 130 includes a medication database 45 “configured to store a variety of information”[15]. The server determines whether the order must be filled by preparing new medication or using a medication that has already been prepared. The already-prepared medication may be one that has previously been returned to the pharmacy and has not passed its expiration date and, thus, can be re-used.
[15] Ibid at [0028]
Another example is provided in relation to the medication Cefazolin. The specification states that where two orders for Cefazolin have been returned, the system could give a notification to combine the returned medication to fill a new order for Cefazolin.
Possible user interfaces for the system are exemplified in Figures 4A, 4B and 4D. Figure 4A, which also relates to the Cefazolin example, is shown here:
The screen shows an order 408 that it is to be delivered to the patient in room 5E.12 by 8:00 AM. The system has placed the order at a first position in the virtual queue (because the assumed current time 402 in Figure 4A is 6:45 AM), and another order 410 for Cefazolin has been placed in the second position in the queue because it shares the same medication component. The screen shows a message 422 indicating to the pharmacist that an order for Cefazolin (2gm/NS 50ml) that has been returned from patient room 3NW-5 at 5:32 AM may be used to fill the new order 408 for Cefazolin (2gm/NS 50ml).
Also described with respect to step 311 of Figure 3 above is the procuring of an image or barcode identifying a component used to formulate the new order 408 of Cefazolin (2gm/NS 50ml). In step 311 the image or barcode is provided to the pharmacist to verify the new order 408 for Cefazolin (2gm/NS 50ml) is filled using the correct medication component. Figure 4D shows an example of a screen:
The screen identifies 472 the medication components used to prepare the medication of the order being filled, as well as the person (e.g., pharmacy technician) preparing the medication 482. The screen further includes an image 474, taken by the person preparing the medication, of each component medication used to formulate the medication to fill the order, as well as a magnification tool 476 following a cursor (or using graphical tools 478) to assist the pharmacist in verifying each medication component. The pharmacist verifies each medication component as correct for formulating the order using the disposition buttons 480. After the pharmacist has verified the medication has been filled using the medication component, an indication that the order for the medication is ready for delivery to the patient is provided, possibly on the output device 134, or the display on the output device 114 of the client 110.
According to the description, if the user selects (from the screen shown in Figure 4A) order 408 or 410 then another user interface is displayed. An example of this user interface is said to be shown in Figure 4B:
The paragraph that describes this figure states:
“The example user interface 430 includes an information display area 431, and a batch display area 432. The information display area 431 may display information regarding a selected order for a medication and/or a selected component medication. The batch display area 432 may display batches of orders for medications that have been grouped together, e.g., based on a common component medication. In operation, the user interface 430 may be displayed on the output device 134 in the pharmacy 2 and particularly in the medication storage area 10, e.g. to facilitate a healthcare professional with picking component medications in a manner that minimizes any wasted amounts of the component medications.”[16]
[16] Ibid at [0062]
The description continues, noting that, to assist the relevant person with delivering prepared medications and retrieving medications that may be used to fill further orders (see message 422 in Figure 4A), they can be shown (on a tablet the person may have) a route for retrieving unused medications and delivering prepared medications.
An example of such a route is shown in Figure 4C:
This figure shows a visualization 442 of a route for collecting four unused medications and delivering two new medications. From the current location 446 of the tablet, a route to collect four unused medications and deliver two new medications is shown. The route indicates (448) to the person to go to a first location 450 to collect one medication (ITEM A) and drop off another (ITEM B). Then the person is directed (452) to a second location 454 in which an unused medication (ITEM C) is picked up, and then to go (456) to a third location 458 in which a medication (ITEM D) is dropped off. After this, the person proceeds (460) to a fourth location 462 in which two unused medications (ITEM E&F) are picked up and returns (464) to the pharmacy 1 so that the four retrieved unused medications can be returned.
Claimed invention
The specification as proposed to be amended has 24 claims, with independent claims 1, 11, 20 and 22. The entire claim set is set out in the Annex to this decision. Claims 1 and 22 are directed to a system, claim 11 is directed to a non-transitory machine-readable storage medium following the same arrangement of features as claim 1, and claim 20 is directed to a method following the same arrangement of features as claim 1. Given the essentially identical form of claims 1, 11 and 20, within this decision any comment that I make with respect to claim 1 should be construed as a comment with respect to claims 11 and 20 as well, unless I specifically state otherwise.
I will set out claims 1 and 22 in full:
“1. A system for managing preparation and remote verification of a medication for a patient, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause one or more processors to:monitor an electronic data feed for medication orders;
provide, based on monitoring the electronic data feed, for display at an output display device associated with a technician, an electronic virtual queue listing orders for medications to be prepared by the technician;
identify, from the orders, an order for medication associated with a patient;
aggregate the order with one or more other medication orders into an aggregated group of orders having a same type or a same component as the medication;
cause the aggregated group of orders to be displayed at the output display device such that the order is visually associated with the one or more other medication orders in the electronic virtual queue;
receive a user selection of the order associated with the patient;
capture, with an image recording device, an image or barcode associated with each component used by the technician to prepare the medication;
provide for display, on a remote display screen associated with a remote pharmacist responsible for authorizing the prepared medication, an indication of the order together with an identification of the patient and the image or barcode associated with each component used to prepare the medication associated with the order;
receive, from the remote pharmacist responsible for authorizing the prepared medication, after the indication and identification and the image or barcode are provided for display, a verification that the medication was prepared with each component;
record the order as being complete and available to the patient based on the verification; and
provide, responsive to receiving the verification, a notification regarding the completed order being ready for delivery to the patient.”
“22. A system for managing preparation and remote verification of a medication for a patient, the system comprising:
an image recording device;
one or more processors; and
a memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause one or more processors to:monitor an electronic data feed, the electronic data feed including data indicating medication orders;
provide, for display at an output device, an electronic virtual queue in which orders for medications to be prepared are listed and updated in real time based on changes from the electronic data feed;
receive, based on monitoring the electronic data feed, information indicative of an order for medication for a patient from the electronic data feed;
determine a position of the order for the medication in a virtual queue configured to display multiple medication orders having a same type or a same component as the medication;
provide, for display at the output device, the virtual queue and an indicator of the order for the medication at the position in the virtual queue among respective indicators of the multiple medication orders having the same type or the same component as the medication;
receive a first user selection of the order associated with the patient;
provide for display each medication component to be picked from inventory to prepare the multiple medication orders with the order associated with the patient;
capture, using the image recording device, an image or video representative of each medication component used to prepare the medication associated with the order;
send, after the first user selection and the capturing, to a display screen remote from the output device for display to a remote user responsible for authorizing the prepared medication, the captured image or video representative of each medication component used to prepare the medication associated with the order;
provide, together with the respective captured images, a display of one or more graphical tools configured to assist the remote user in viewing and verifying the respective image and display of one or more disposition controls for verifying that the medication was correctly prepared with each component;
receive, after the respective captured images are provided for display on the display screen with the one or more graphical tools, a second user selection of the one or more disposition controls, initiated by the remote user responsible for authorizing the prepared medication and indicating verification that the medication was correctly prepared with each component; and
provide to a device separate from the one or more processors, based on the second user selection and verification, a notification that the respective order is available for the patient.”
The hardware in the claimed system is minimal. The claims define one or more processors, a memory, display devices (which can be screens), and an image recording device. Claim 22 differs from claim 1 in that claim 22 explicitly defines that the notification is provided to a separate device.
In claim 1, the system can receive input information about orders for medication from a data feed, create a virtual queue of orders, change the queue to aggregate orders based on the component(s) of the medication, and display this aggregated queue on a screen (possibly to a technician). I note in this regard that, while the description has the aggregated orders being displayed consecutively, the claim does not necessarily require this. The claim simply requires that the order is “visually associated with the one or more other medication orders in the electronic virtual queue”. This may be achieved simply by using the same colour for the aggregated orders that is different from the colour for the other orders. Nevertheless, I will proceed based on the aggregation scheme that is described. The system permits a “user” (who may or may not be the technician) to select an order. It also permits the capture (again, possibly by the technician) of an image (or barcode) of the component(s) that was used to prepare the medication and send it to a “remote” pharmacist to verify that the medication was prepared with the component(s). Once the verification is received, a notification is sent (possibly to a mobile device outside the system) that the order is ready for collection from the pharmacy for delivery to the patient.
In claim 22, the system receives input information about an order for medication from a data feed which is then placed into a virtual queue which is “configured to display multiple medication orders having a same type or a same component as the medication”. It is worth noting that I do not see the quoted feature as limiting. In my opinion, any display that showed orders in any order would, inherently, be displaying multiple orders which have the same type of component(s). Claim 22 then requires that the order is displayed in the queue “among respective indicators of the multiple medication orders having the same type or the same component as the medication”. It is not immediately apparent whether this part of claim 22 defines the aggregation that claim 1 explicitly defines. The word “among” could indicate that aspect, but it could just as easily mean “as well as”. However, given the specification as a whole, I will take this claim element as defining that the received order is being placed in the queue in the same area as other medication orders having a same (type of) component as the received order. Once a user selects the received order, claim 22 defines that the system displays “each medication component to be picked from inventory to prepare the multiple medication orders with the order associated with the patient”. This passage is not particularly clear. It would appear that it is seeking to define a process that is set out in claim 2, whereby batches of orders are created, and the medication containers required to fill the batch are identified. However, there appears to be words missing between “multiple medication orders” and “with the order”. Nevertheless, for the purposes of this decision, I will proceed on the assumption that this feature of claim 22 is the same as that defined in claim 2, but the claim drafting does leave something to be desired. Having identified the medication containers, similar to claim 1, an image (or video) of each component(s) that was used to prepare the medication required by the order is captured and sent it to a “remote” user to verify that the medication was prepared with the component(s). Claim 22 specifies that the remote user’s screen showing the image displays “graphical tools configured to assist the remote user in viewing and verifying the respective image”. The remote user’s screen also displays “controls for verifying that the medication was correctly prepared”. Once the verification is received, a notification is sent (possibly to a mobile device outside the system) that the order is ready for collection from the pharmacy and delivery to the patient.
Examination
In the first report of 22 September 2021 the examiner raised lack of inventive step and lack of manner of manufacture for a set of claims that were identical to those originally filed with the parent. Relevant to this decision, the examiner, under manner of manufacture, stated (admittedly against quite different claims) that:
“The claimed invention determines whether the order for medication for a patient can be filled with a returned medication and determine if there is more than one order that require the same medication component. When the determination indicates the order can be filled with a returned medication, provide a notification to fill the order with the returned medication; and when the determination indicates another order requiring the same medication component, aggregating the order queue based on the common component.
The problem solved by the claimed invention, i.e. re-using returned medication and re-ordering a queue based on a parameter (common medication component in the current invention), is not a technical problem. The technical features of the claim, considered in combination, were generic in the art at the priority date. The claimed invention does not result in an improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data processed. The contribution to the art and substance of the invention thus appears to lie in the scheme for keeping a record of returned medication for using it to fulfil new orders and aggregating a order queue based on a parameter.”
In their response of 28 March 2022, the applicant extensively amended the claims to a form that was close to the form of the claims as they are now. The amendments inserted the two “parts” that I have described above of displaying a queue of medication orders and supplying an image of the component(s) used to prepare the medication for verification. With respect to inventive step, the applicant argued that the citations did not include the feature of displaying images of components and receiving a verification.
With respect to manner of manufacture, the applicant argued that the present disclosure provided an improved technical system to address the technical problem of preparing medications in a waste-minimised manner. The argument was that current technologies did not provide efficient and waste-minimising medication preparation systems, and the technical contribution lay in the field of medication preparation systems.
This argument was not accepted by the examiner in their second report of 3 May 2022. The examiner stated inter alia that:
“… there is nothing in the specification to suggest that there has been ingenuity in recognising a shortcoming in any existing system and identifying the need to alter the order in which the medicines are prepared. Secondly, as submitted by the Applicant, the wastage arises due to medication orders being frequently changed or discontinued. The prior art pharmacy systems existing at the priority date of the current invention were capable of changing an order or cancelling an order in real time. Therefore the problem is not a failure in technologies per se.
The present invention uses existing technologies (computer, scanner etc as shown at Figs. 2 and 5) to enable aggregating an order queue based on a specific parameter and using returned medication to fill an order. As explained below, on balance, I am not convinced that the current invention provides a technical solution.
I am unable to find any evidence for technical improvement in a standard computer system. I have also not identified any ingenuity in the utilisation of computer technology defined in the present claims.
…
Based on the current description, the technical components (Figs. 2 and 5)- the computer system that aggregates the order, the verification and notification system, are standard components and are performing their well known functions. I cannot, based on the submissions of the applicant or the specification, identify any improvement in computer technology, or the way in which it is used, or any invention in the computerisation of the method, that could be considered to define a technical contribution. Similarly I am unable find any technical ingenuity in the way each of the steps are connected as submitted by the Applicant. The only way these steps are connected is that an output of one step is provided as an input to the next step.
Furthermore, the specification provides no details of how to implement the method on a computer system. This suggests that the applicant considers the method can be implemented using nothing more than the common general knowledge.
In conclusion, the current invention does not solve a technical problem nor does it provide a technical solution.” (italics in report)
The applicant responded on 14 September 2022 with further amendments adding in further features associated with the capturing of an image so that the image could be presented to user responsible for authorising the prepared medication and argued that:
“These features provide advantages of facilitating quality control by ensuring that a medication was prepared using the proper components, thereby ensuring that the patient receiving the medication is receiving the correct medication and dosage of medication (more than merely verifying the right patient), thereby avoiding the possibility of critical injury or even death due to an administration of an incorrect medication.
More importantly, the system provides a unique technical solution to the technical problem of remotely verifying prescription fulfillment. That is, the system provides a mechanism for a pharmacist to remotely verify a pharmacy technician’s order preparation, which can be accomplished over a network while the pharmacist is away from the pharmacy.
…
The aggregation of similar medication and automated reordering of the queue reduces the cognitive burden of the user since the user does not have to search or scroll to find similar medications present in the queue which are not visible on the screen due to the limited screen real estate. The intelligent batching of orders therefore reduces the number of scrolling operations which must be handled by the system as the healthcare professionals navigate the interface. Moreover, the presently claimed virtual queue can be considered a technical solution that improves the functionality of the system. Displaying orders having similar components together (that is, next to each other the displayed virtual queue) reduces processing power required from the computer and increases the overall processing speed of the system, as compared to conventional systems which might utilise a random search and display of information for all possible orders. The claimed solution thereby provides technical effects of leaner coding requiring a reduced number of instructions. Further, the virtual queue provides a streamlined display of information. Each of these advantages provides cumulative benefits which results in a technically improved medication preparation management system, which allows for more efficient and timely use of medication components to prepare time critical medication orders and minimize waste in preparation of the orders.
The recent decision of the High Court in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (Aristocrat ‘22) provides some helpful guidance as to the proper approach to determining patentable subject matter. In this decision, it was said that ‘asking whether the claimed invention is an advance in computer technology … or indeed is any advance in technology at all …’ is not necessary or helpful in properly characterising the invention as ‘the issue is not one of an “advance” in the sense of inventiveness or novelty’ (Aristocrat ’22, paragraph 77).
In light of this, we submit that an advance (or improvement) in computer technology as sought by the Examiner is not a threshold requirement for the claims to define a manner of manufacture. Rather, Aristocrat ’22 provides that ‘the issue is whether the implementation of what is otherwise an unpatentable idea or plan or game involves some adaptation or alteration of, or addition to, technology otherwise well-known in the common general knowledge to accommodate the exigencies of the new idea or plan or game.’ (Aristocrat ’22, paragraph 77, emphasis added).
…
… to the extent that the system does utilise known technical components, these components have been combined, and caused to relate to each other, in such a way that the resultant medication management system is physically different, and functions differently, to prior disclosed medication management systems. We submit that the claimed combination of technological features, and the specific features of their interactions, should be considered ‘some adaptation or alteration of, or addition to’ technologies which were previously well known in the field of medication preparation management systems. The claimed system should therefore be considered a manner of manufacture.” (emphases in original)
The examiner remained unconvinced and, in their objection in the third report, set out this objection:
“I have considered Applicants amendments and submissions and find them unpersuasive.
Applicant submits that the system of the current solution provides a unique technical solution to the technical problem of remotely verifying prescription fulfillment. That is, the system provides a mechanism for a pharmacist to remotely verify a pharmacy technician’s order preparation, which can be accomplished over a network while the pharmacist is away from the pharmacy.
I would like to emphasise that the substance of an invention is assessed based on the true nature of the invention and not based on the form of the claim.
I maintain that the current invention is a scheme for aggregating an order queue based on a parameter, which is not a manner of manufacture.
While the claims are directed towards remotely verifying a pharmacy technician’s order preparation, the present invention uses existing technologies (computer, scanner etc as shown at Figs. 2 and 5). I acknowledge that the current amendments further define an image recording device. However the image recording device is described at a very broad level in the specification and it is readily apparent that it is being used in a standard way for its well-known purpose. Therefore this feature does not affect the substance of the invention. The remaining amendments merely further define steps of the medication preparation scheme and do not add any technical matter to the claim or to the substance of the invention.
In this regard, Applicant’s attention is directed Federal court’s decision on Repipe Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents (No 3) [2021] FCA 31, specifically to [63] – [68], where it states that The fact that the existing GPS technology may be put to use in a new scheme is not sufficient to constitute patentable subject matter. The generic technology is used in the same way it is normally used, albeit that it is applied in a new scheme.
Applicant further submits that the claimed form of medication order aggregation (in a virtual queue) cannot be considered a general scheme for aggregating orders.
I respectfully disagree. Automated reordering of a queue, specifically in the art of pharmacy and medication preparation queue was well known at the priority date of the current invention. Ordering the prescriptions in a queue based on variety of factors such as pre-defined parameters, the time the order was received, priority of the medication etc was well known. That aside, it should be noted that ordering a list based on specific parameters is no more than a mere information processing step and does not constitute technical character.
As explained in the previous examination report, the current specification discusses aggregation of orders at paragraphs [0050] – [0051], and does not discuss further details of the aggregation and/or its implementation. Therefore based upon the face of the specification and the common general knowledge existing at the priority date of the current application the order aggregation of the current invention amounts to a business scheme, i.e., organising a business activity of medication order preparation.
Applicant also submits that the current invention results in reduced scrolling and reduces processing power required from the computer and increases the overall processing speed of the system, as compared to conventional systems which might utilise a random search and display of information for all possible orders.
As discussed, automated reordering of a queue in a pharmacy computer system was known. Any alleged improvement in the current invention may be stemming from the specific parameter based on which the orders in a queue are aggregated. I cannot find evidence for an improvement in a conventional computer system per se. Hence any alleged efficiency cannot be considered to be technical in nature.
Finally, Applicant cites Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd v Commissioner of Patents [2022] HCA 29 (Aristocrat 22).
Please note that the discussion of either Keifel et al or Gordan et al do not provide binding precedent and as such the full court precedent prior to Aristocrat 22 applies. Nevertheless, it should also be noted that both pluralities in Aristocrat 22 treated previous Full Court decisions considering computer-implemented inventions as being correctly decided, including Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents (RA), Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd (RPL), Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd, and Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd. Therefore the principles set out by RA, RPL are still relevant and were applied in the analysis of the current application.” (italics in the report)
Manner of manufacture
Through all three reports, the examiner has maintained an objection that the claims do not define a manner of manufacture, and this is the only outstanding objection. It is appropriate to summarise the law at this point.
Statutory framework
Section 18(1)(a) of the Act provides that an invention is a patentable invention for the purposes of a standard patent if the invention, so far as claimed in any claim, is a manner of manufacture within the meaning of section 6 of the Statute of Monopolies 1623 (Imp) (“Statute of Monopolies”).
Legal principles
The classic enquiry for “manner of manufacture” is set out in National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents[17]:
“The right question is: ‘Is this a proper subject of letters patent according to the principles which have been developed for the application of s. 6 of the Statute of Monopolies?’”[18]
[17] [1959] HCA 67 (“NRDC”)
[18] NRDC at [14]
The High Court set out a test in terms relevant to the facts of that case:
“… a process, to fall within the limits of patentability which the context of the Statute of Monopolies has supplied, must be one that offers some advantage which is material, in the sense that the process belongs to a useful art as distinct from a fine art … that its value to the country is in the field of economic endeavour.”[19]
and
“The effect produced by the appellant's method exhibits the two essential qualities upon which ‘product’ and ‘vendible’ seem designed to insist. It is a ‘product’ because it consists in an artificially created state of affairs, discernible by observing over a period the growth of weeds and crops respectively on sown land on which the method has been put into practice. And the significance of the product is economic; for it provides a remarkable advantage, indeed to the lay mind a sensational advantage, for one of the most elemental activities by which man has served his material needs, the cultivation of the soil for the production of its fruits.”[20]
[19] NRDC at [22]
[20] NRDC at [25]
However, the High Court was not laying down a precise formulation that can be applied unthinkingly. In D'Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc[21] it was said:
“This Court in NRDC did not prescribe a well-defined pathway for the development of the concept of ‘manner of manufacture’ in its application to unimagined technologies with unimagined characteristics and implications. Rather, it authorised a case-by-case methodology.”[22]
[21] [2015] HCA 35 (“Myriad”)
[22] Myriad at [23]
That case-by-case approach must have regard to the substance of the claimed invention, not simply the form of the claim[23]. The point is made succinctly by Gageler and Nettle JJ:
“Whatever words have been used, the matter must be looked at as one of substance and effect must be given to the true nature of the claim.”[24]
[23] Myriad at [6] and [88]
[24] Myriad at [144]
To further guide the determination of patentable subject matter in the context of computer implemented inventions, a range of principles have been developed by the Full Federal Court. Recently, consideration has been given to these principles in the High Court decision in Aristocrat ‘22 where the Court was evenly split regarding a finding of patentability. While split, the High Court affirmed the correctness of decisions in Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd[25], Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents[26], Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd[27], and Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd[28], while also appearing to confirm that an advance in computer technology is not a useful test for patentability.
[25] [2015] FCAFC 177 (“RPL Central”)
[26] [2014] FCAFC 150 (“Research Affiliates”)
[27] [2019] FCAFC 161 (“Encompass”)
[28] [2020] FCAFC 86 (“Rokt 2”)
The principles of law that apply to the present matter in the context of computer implementation were summarised by the Commissioner in Rokt Pte Ltd v Commissioner of Patents[29]:
[29] [2018] FCA 1988 (“Rokt 1”)
“17.1 The Court must decide, as matter of substance not form, whether the claimed invention is the proper subject-matter for a patent: RPL Central at [99]; Research Affiliates at [106], [117].
17.2 This requires consideration of both the claims of the Application and the invention described in the body of the specification: RPL Central at [114].
17.3 The assessment is not done mechanically. There are no precise guidelines or mathematical formula. It is ‘a question of understanding what has been the work of, the output of, and the result of, human ingenuity’ and then applying the developed principles: Research Affiliates at [116]. See further RPL Central at [112]:
Recognising that the claims are to a method and system comprising a combination of integers, it is necessary to understand where the inventiveness or ingenuity is said to lie …
17.4 One well-settled principle is that a distinction exists between a technological innovation and a business innovation. A technological innovation is patentable. A business innovation is not: Research Affiliates at [94]; RPL Central at [100]. Consequently, a business method or scheme is not, per se, a proper subject for letters patent: RPL Central at [96]. Nor are abstract ideas, mere intellectual information or mere directions for use patentable: Research Affiliates at [101]; RPL Central at [100].
17.5 A computerised business method or scheme can, in some cases, be patentable. However, ‘[w]here the claimed invention is to a computerised business method, the invention must lie in that computerisation’: RPL Central at [96] (emphasis added). This requires ‘some ingenuity in the way in which the computer is used’: RPL Central at [104]. It is not a patentable invention ‘to simply “put” a business method “into” a computer to implement the business method using the computer for its well-known and understood functions’: RPL Central at [96]. In other words, if the ingenuity lies in the business method or scheme alone, the invention will not be patentable despite the computer-implementation.
17.6 Thus, a claimed invention must be examined to ascertain whether it is in substance a scheme or plan, or whether it can broadly be described as an improvement in computer technology: RPL Central at [96]. Contrary to [the applicant’s submissions at [49]], this is a binary distinction: the invention is either an unpatentable scheme or plan, or it is a patentable improvement in computer technology. In conducting the analysis, it is useful to:
17.6.1 ascertain whether the contribution to the claimed invention is technical in nature: RPL Central at [99], Research Affiliates at [114];
17.6.2 consider whether the invention solves a ‘technical’ problem within the computer or outside the computer: RPL Central at [99], Research Affiliates at [103];
17.6.3 consider whether the invention results in an improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed: RPL Central at [99], Research Affiliates at [118];
17.6.4 consider whether the invention requires merely ‘generic computer implementation’, as distinct from steps which are ‘foreign’ to the normal use of computers: RPL Central at [99], [102]; Research Affiliates at [101]; and
17.6.5 consider whether the computer is merely the intermediary, configured to carry out the method using program code for performing the method, but adding nothing to the substance of the idea: RPL Central at [99].”[30]
This summary was not criticised by Robertson J in Rokt 1 and apparently accepted by the Full Court in Rokt 2. It encompasses all principles developed in Research Affiliates and RPL Central.
[30] Rokt 1 at [189]
Moreover, in looking at this, it is necessary to keep in mind the state of the art. In this regard Myriad stated:
“This appeal, however, collapses the anterior and subsequent questions – ‘Is there an invention?’ and ‘Is there a patentable invention?’ – into one inquiry. That inquiry requires a definition of the allegedly patentable invention. That definition depends upon the construction of the impugned claims read in the light of the specification as a whole and the relevant prior art. The prior art in this case was reflected in expert evidence at trial and set out in the scientific primer agreed between the parties and summarised later in these reasons.”[31]
and
“Based upon the expert evidence at trial, the primer may be taken as embodying the scientific background, presumably comprising common general knowledge, or at least relevant prior art, against which the complete specification, including the claims, is to be read.”[32] (my emphasis)
[31] Myriad at [12]
[32] Ibid at [39]
This point was emphasised in Rokt 2:
“The present appeal also calls attention to the single enquiry identified in this passage, namely whether, upon construction, claim 1 as read in the light of the specification as a whole in the light of the relevant prior art, which in the present case is the common general knowledge, is a manner of manufacture.
…
The role of expert evidence in construing the patent specification and the claims is limited. It is to place the Court in the position of the person acquainted with the surrounding circumstances as to the state of the art and manufacture as at the priority date: Kimberly-Clark Australia Pty Ltd v Arico Trading International Pty Ltd [2001] HCA 8; (2001) 207 CLR 1 at [24]; Myriad Genetics at [12]”[33]
[33] Rokt 2 at [68] and [73]
A caution
In their submissions, and at the hearing, the applicant provided detailed analysis of similarities between the claimed invention and the inventions at play in eBay Inc[34] and Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited[35] which found those inventions to be manners of manufacture. In this regard, the observation of the Delegate in Accenture Global Services Limited is of relevance:
“As far as the Applicant may be suggesting some reliance on the outcome of prior decisions, such as eBay, it is perhaps worth noting that the decisions issued by the Australian Patent Office do not form part of the case law and, as such, do not establish any legal principles or precedent. In each individual decision, the Deputy Commissioner or a delegate of the Commissioner applies the principles developed by the Courts to the facts of the case to reach a conclusion. While I acknowledge that, in eBay, the Delegate reached the conclusion that, in that particular case, the invention was a manner of manufacture, I cannot see how this could help the Applicant given that each case is decided on its own merits in light of the legal principles developed by the Courts.”[36]
[34] [2020] APO 49 (eBay)
[35] [2016] APO 49 (Aristocrat ’16)
[36] [2023] APO 10
As such, it is not the role of the Commissioner to distinguish the invention before her from any invention that was said to be a manner of manufacture in another of her decisions. Such an approach would appear to be seeking to use decisions of the Commissioner to effectively supplant the principles developed by the Courts.
That being said, in the present case, whether referring to the principles developed by the Courts, or by comparing the present invention to those in previous decisions of the Commissioner, the outcome is the same. I will, therefore, seek to address the submissions made by the applicant on these decisions of the Commissioner.
Applicant’s submissions
The applicant disagreed with the examiner’s characterisation of the invention. They submitted that the claims were not “merely” directed to a scheme for aggregating an order queue based on a parameter, but also provided a verification system in which a pharmacist remotely verified prepared orders using images. The applicant stated that this process was neither disclosed nor hinted in the prior art.
The applicant stated:
“Accordingly, the claimed technology provides a unique technical solution to the technical problem of remotely verifying prescription fulfilment. That is, the system provides a mechanism for a pharmacist to remotely verify a pharmacy technician’s order preparation, which can be accomplished over a network while the pharmacist is away from the pharmacy.
Additionally, the claimed aggregation (in a virtual queue) cannot be considered a general scheme for aggregating orders. Rather, the functionality provided by the aggregation in the virtual queue, and the batching of orders, has a practical and useful effect in not only providing optimised directions to the user, but enabling the user to interact with the system new way.”[37]
[37] Written submissions at [12]–[13]
The applicant believed that these features meant that the claims defined a technical contribution, addressing a technical problem, thereby producing a practical and useful result in the technical field of medication preparation, and were not directed to a mere scheme or a business method. They submitted:
“The invention as claimed is for more than an abstract, intangible situation which is a mere scheme, an abstract idea and mere intellectual information. Instead, the invention as claimed is for a new system through which a user may prepare medication orders in a timely and efficient manner and which provides a mechanism for reducing the number of interaction steps required to conduct the medication preparation and verification processes.”[38]
[38] Ibid at [14]
The applicant disputed the examiner’s allegation that medication order preparation was a business activity. Although the applicant accepted that medication preparation was an activity that could be done within a business (such as a pharmacy), they submitted that medication preparation was a technical activity with a physical result, and not like the abstract business methods and schemes found in patent law.
Use of generic or well-known components
Accepting that the claims defined only generic or well-known components, the applicant submitted that, nevertheless, an allowable invention could be composed of previously known individual physical components. The applicant submitted that it was not normal at the priority date to organise a medication preparation system in the way that was claimed and, therefore, the invention was clearly for a “new machine or process”[39].
[39] Research Affiliates at [94]
In this regard, the applicant focussed on the image recording device and submitted that it played a significant part in enabling the claimed solution to be carried out. As such, it was a feature which affected the substance of the invention and could not be disregarded from consideration simply because the feature was individually known and/or is being used in its normal way.
The applicant stated that the examiner’s statement that the “remaining amendments merely further define steps of the medication preparation scheme and do not add any technical matter to the claim or to the substance of the invention”[40] was “an impermissible stripping back of the features of the claimed invention”[41] which obscured the ingenuity of the inventors and diminished the determined substance of the invention to a mere scheme. The applicant submitted that the technical elements making up the claimed system could not be disaggregated from the rest of the claim when considering the substance of the invention, or where the ingenuity of the inventors lies.
[40] Examiner’s 3rd report
[41] Written submissions at [20]
In the applicant’s opinion, the claimed invention was not a mere collocation of known elements. Instead, it was a cohesive system. Accepting that the individual system components are known, the applicant submitted that the working interrelationship of the claimed combination of elements that achieved the purposes of the invention was not known. They submitted that:
“… the specific combination of software and hardware components, and their claimed interaction, forms a new and inventive system. In disaggregating elements of the claim, the Examiner has erroneously overlooked the synergistic results arising from the combination of all of the integers in the claimed invention.”[42]
[42] Ibid at [23]
The applicant drew an analogy between the present invention and the claims under consideration in eBay. In the applicant’s opinion, the invention in eBay involved a system of disparate, generic computer components and included steps of obtaining information from the disparate computer components, determination of a course of action, and graphical presentation of information to assist the user to perform the course of action. The delegate in eBay did not find that the generic nature of the components meant they could be disregarded when considering the substance of the invention. Rather, consideration was rightly given to the combination of all claim integers.
The applicant submitted that this was the correct approach for the claims of the present application and that the examiner had erred in disregarding the contribution of the components of the claimed invention to the substance of the invention on the basis that each was merely a generic component.
Technical solution to a technical problem
The applicant submitted that when considering the claimed features in combination, the present invention did not simply define a mere presentation of information, an abstract idea or scheme, and did not merely implement a business process within a computer. The applicant noted that in eBay the delegate had stated:
“… I do not agree that, in combination, the claimed invention defines merely a presentation of information, an abstract idea or scheme, nor is it merely implementing a business process within a computer as the claims do not merely define such features. I do not agree with the examiner that the claimed features, in combination, can be distinguished from the subject matter of the [Aristocrat ‘16] decision and consider that the second and fifth dot points, namely ‘is the contribution of the claimed invention technical in nature’, and ‘does the application of the method produce a practical and useful result’, at least, are met by the substance of the invention as defined in the claims”[43],
and submitted that there were similarities between the invention considered in eBay and the present invention. The applicant submitted that the steps of the present application that lead up to the display of the aggregated queue were analogous to the provision of walking directions to the user in the eBay invention. The applicant highlighted that, in the eBay application, directions were updated based on real-time data relating to location, time and congestion, and likened this to the queue being updated in real-time based on data about changes in other co-pending medication orders. The applicant stated:
“In the eBay application the directions were updated based on realtime data relating to location, time and congestion. Analogously, in the present application, the directions (the queue) are updated based on real-time data relating to changes in other co-pending medication orders. In eBay, the obtaining and processing of congestion data during the course of an event was recognised as a technical problem. Further, the processing of the data to provide an optimised route was recognised as a technical solution. The identified practical and useful effect in the eBay invention enables a user to navigate in a less congested and more timely and efficient manner. Similarly, in the present invention, the provision of the practical and useful effect in the present invention enables production of the medication orders in a less wasteful and more timely and efficient manner.”[44]
[43] eBay at [42]
[44] Written submissions at [33]
The applicant’s submission was that the real-time information relating to the other co-pending medication orders used to change the queue order was similar to the way that the eBay invention changed its suggested course based upon congestion information received at a processor. The applicant submitted that the provision of optimised directions to the user was analogous to the presentation of the queue information to the user in the present application, with both being said to provide:
“… a physical and technical solution to a physical and technical problem that provides a practical and useful result.”[45]
[45] Ibid at [34]
The applicant also highlighted the steps of capturing an image associated with each component used to prepare the medication, displaying this image along with the order to a pharmacist responsible for authorisation of the prepared medication, receiving verification from the pharmacist and providing a notification to indicate that the order is complete and ready for delivery. The applicant submitted that these steps were addressing a real and physical problem associated with quality control in medication preparation when an authoriser may not be physically present, and they produced a practical and useful result that was not related to business processes or rules.
The applicant further submitted that displaying a queue of aggregated orders reduced processing power when compared to random search and display of information for all possible orders. They also submitted that aggregation of similar medication reduced the cognitive burden of the user because it presented a streamlined display of information so that they did not have to search to find similar medications.
The applicant also took the position that the presented queue was not just a list of orders, or mere presentation of information, but a practical and useful result in the form of optimised directions enabling the preparation of medication orders in a less wasteful and more timely and efficient manner. The applicant highlighted the decision in Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc[46] where a mathematical formula was used to reduce the number of reference samples required for quality control testing leading to less wastage of calibration fluid.
[46] [2018] APO 24 (“Bio-Rad”)
Finally, the applicant likened the present invention to that in Aristocrat ‘16 where an improved user interface which allowed a single input to achieve multiple actions to occur was found to be patentable. In the applicant’s opinion, the system of the present application allowed a user to make a single selection in order to begin the process of preparing batched orders in aggregate, where prior art systems would have required multiple interaction steps.
While they noted that the delegate in the parent decision stated:
“The process has an element that is carried out by a system (the ordering of the list), and an element that is carried out by a person (filing the orders and delivering the orders). Overall the process can achieve a practical and useful effect in reducing wastage of pharmaceutical material. This effect is more than a serendipity – it is the intended outcome of the logic in the reordering process. However, claim 1 is not limited to situations in which this advantage is assured”[47],
and that:
“… there is the potential for a practical and useful result of the kind that is recognised by the patent system … but the result is not guaranteed”[48],
the applicant submitted that a requirement for a guarantee that a user will always use the claimed system in a way that achieves the useful or practical effect is not supported in case law. They submitted that:
“… the Delegate for the hearing parent application 2014268828 was in error in requiring that the practical and useful effect was limited to the reduction in waste, and that there was a requirement for the reduction in waste to be guaranteed or assured.”[49]
[47] Parent decision at [66]
[48] Ibid at [70]
[49] Written submissions at [53]
The applicant submitted that:
“… the presentation of optimised directions for preparing the medication orders is, like in eBay, a practical and useful effect which benefits the user in the medication preparation process. Further, as in [Aristocrat ‘16], the information is presented in such a way that a user may, by a single action, select a batch of aggregated medication orders for simultaneous preparation, thus simplifying the user [sic] of the medication preparation system by the user.”[50]
[50] Ibid at [54]
The applicant also noted during the hearing that the invention was described as updating various factors, such as the queue and the displayed directions for drop-off and pick-up in real time. They noted that the same feature was described in eBay, and the invention in eBay had been considered a technical solution to a technical problem. Taking the example of updating the pick-up directions, the applicant argued that if the route and the expiry date of the medication were known, then the system could work out whether the medication could be reused or not, because it could be calculated whether it will have expired by the time the person arrived at the pick-up location. The applicant characterised this as being more than just saying the element of real-time was desirable. I noted that this was not in the claims. These features were then added during amendment as claim 23.
Claim 22
The applicant also filed further submissions (“further submissions”) with their proposed amendments of 24 February 2023. These submissions were primarily focused on new claim 22, while also including some comments on new claims 23 and 24.
The submissions noted that claim 22 defined that, upon selection of an order, the system displayed the medication components required to prepare multiple medication orders that the order had been grouped with. The applicant reiterated the point that the system required a single user input instead of multiple interactions with the system. The applicant submitted that this was a technical contribution having a practical and useful effect.
The further submissions also noted the:
“… concrete physical processes of using an image recording device to capture image or video representative of each medication component used to prepare the medication associated with the order”[51],
and noted, along similar lines to earlier, that:
“… capturing an image or video of each medication component … and sending the image or video … to a remote display (provided with graphical tools) cannot be performed in the human mind. Consequently, the claim has limitations that cannot be practically performed in the human mind and cannot be characterised as an abstract idea, a scheme or a mental process.
… sending of images or videos is integrated into the invention … because the sending is required for the subsequent display of the claimed graphical tools, receiving of the second user selection indicating verification, and resulting notification that the order is available for the patient. These features provide the practical application of [the] system, which provides a mechanism for a pharmacist to remotely verify a pharmacy technician’s order preparation, which can be accomplished over a network while the pharmacist is away from the pharmacy.
… the image capture device and graphical tools are not directed to generic computer functions and provide significant improvements in medication preparation. These concrete physical processes, including using an image recording device or graphical tools configured to facilitate remote viewing and verifying the respective medication – or the subsequent actions and/or steps based on the concrete physical processes – do not amount to an abstract idea or a scheme.
sending the captured images and the graphical tools after the first user selection conserves vital resources associated with the claimed processor(s) such as memory and display processing by delaying such processing until necessary. … delay of the notification until the second user selection is received conserves not only the resources of the processor(s) but also the resources of the device separate from the processor(s), since the remote device is essentially prevented from processing the notification until after the claimed user selections and verification.”[52]
[51] Further submissions at page 1
[52] Ibid at pages 1–2
Consideration of independent claims
It is clear to me that there are, in effect, two “parts” to the invention claimed in claims 1 and 22. The first part simply results in a displayed list of received medication requests whose order has been created based upon administrative controls. It is a processing and presentation of administrative or business information. The second part is a verification process whereby a person is required to attest that a medication was prepared using a component. This verification is an inherently administrative process that results in a notification that an order is ready for delivery. Presentations of administrative and business information and administrative processes are not a manner of manufacture. They do not solve technical problems. Combining them into one claim does not advance the applicant’s cause any further.
However, it does not automatically follow that the claimed invention is not a manner of manufacture. In line with RPL Central, where a claimed invention is a computerised administrative process or a computerised method of presenting administrative or business information, if the invention lies in the computerisation, rather than just “putting” the administrative process “into” a computer, then the claimed invention may be a manner of manufacture.
Use of generic or well-known components
I do not think it is disputed that it is incorrect to state that an arrangement defined in claims is not a manner of manufacture merely because of the presence of generic computer components in those claims. If the mere presence of generic components was enough to render a claim unpatentable, then the decision of Re International Business Machines Corporation v Patrick Anselm Smith, Commissioner of Patents[53] (and the decision of the Deputy Commissioner in Aristocrat ‘16) would have been different, since the computer components defined in those claims are entirely generic. However, the presence of generic components in a claim tends to lend some weight to a consideration that the substance of the invention is not technological. In addition, if the specification is agnostic as to precise implementation of a scheme in generic computer components, then the likelihood of those components forming part of the substance of the invention is lessened.
[53] [1991] FCA 625
Nevertheless, there is clearly more to consider; in particular, whether, as noted in Research Affiliates:
“… any part of the inventive step lies in the computer implementation”[54].
This is expanded upon in paragraph [96] of RPL Central cited within the quote from Rokt 1 at paragraph [53] above.
[54] Research Affiliates at [118]
The applicant continuously stressed during the hearing that what was required was to look at the claim as a whole. When that was done then, in the applicant’s submissions, it would be found to be the case that the substance of the claimed invention was a new system, composed of generic components, through which a user:
“… may prepare medication orders in a timely and efficient manner and which provides a mechanism for reducing the number of interaction steps required to conduct the medication preparation and verification processes.”[55]
[55] Written submissions at [14]
However, the applicant’s submission that the examiner’s approach was a stripping back of the claim does not, I think, represent what has occurred. I can see no stripping back or disaggregation. The examiner has simply said that the presence of these generic features does not change (or “affect” as the examiner wrote) the substance. The examiner certainly did not state that they were ignoring generic features. Accepting the applicant’s submission that I quoted at [66] above that:
“… the specific combination of software and hardware components, and their claimed interaction, forms a new and inventive system”,
that is not determinative of the question of manner of manufacture. Such an approach, in my opinion, can lead to an inappropriate focus on the form of the claims rather than the substance of the invention. Instead, as noted in Myriad:
“… effect must be given to the true nature of the claim”[56].
[56] Myriad at [144]
As another point, in the applicant’s submissions quoted at [66] above, they spoke of the:
“… synergistic results arising from the combination of all of the integers in the claimed invention”.
I queried this as, to me, “synergism” arose when the output of a system was more than the sum of the inputs, and I did not see such an effect here. The applicant clarified that the synergistic effect arose because of the combination of the technical elements, the software, and the particular manner in which the software responded to the user interactions. That is, what was claimed, in the applicant’s opinion, was more than just the combination of each of the individual physical components, but, instead, was a new and inventive system that provided a technical contribution over previous systems.
This is not synergistic in the “classical” sense. To my mind, this seemed to be a description of what I would refer to as a working interrelationship. There is no synergism in the combination of physical elements of the invention. Clearly, there is a working interrelationship between the steps of the scheme that produce a result of a prepared medication to fill an order.
True it is that there are several physical elements that are used in carrying out the claimed process of preparing and remotely verifying a medication. It may also be the case that the arrangement of physical elements is not known (although I will note in passing that simple network of interconnected computers with imaging peripherals, etc could fall within the scope of the combination of physical elements as claimed, such that the combination of physical elements may, in fact, be known). However, as noted in the case law:
“Recognising that the claims are to a method and system comprising a combination of integers, it is necessary to understand where the inventiveness or ingenuity is said to lie …”[57]
[57] RPL Central at [112]
Focusing on the arrangement of components does not avoid the issue I noted in [81] above – that the claimed invention results in the presentation of administrative or business information and then the performance of an administrative verification scheme once an element of the presented information is selected. In such a situation, if generic components are “brought into” a claim to carry out those steps, that does not mean that the substance of the invention automatically changes. There is no threshold of “componentness” whereby the sheer number of (generically) claimed components in a claim makes a non-patentable scheme patentable. This, to my mind, is the point the examiner was (correctly) making.
While the applicant submitted (as set out at [80] above) that the invention:
(i)“cannot be practically performed in the human mind”,
(ii)that “sending of images or videos is integrated into the invention … which provides a mechanism for a pharmacist to remotely verify a pharmacy technician’s order preparation”,
(iii)and that the “concrete physical processes … do not amount to an abstract idea or a scheme”,
this does not avoid my point about bringing in generic components. While it could be argued that there are physical steps in the claim (e.g. selecting an order and/or capturing an image might require a mouse click), such steps do not change the substance of the present invention. Images are captured and sent because the scheme requires verification of preparation of the medication. Simply bringing in components and defining them as carrying out a step of the scheme does not necessarily integrate those components to the extent that the substance of the invention is different. Indeed, if that was the case, then the decision in cases such as Rokt 2 (where there were arguably components carrying out steps as well as physical steps performed by the user – e.g. in accepting the engagement offer) would have been different.
I note the applicant’s submission that:
“… the image capture device and graphical tools are not directed to generic computer functions”[58].
However, while I disagree this is the case, accepting for the sake of argument that these features are not “directed to generic computer functions”, they are, nevertheless, generic components, and they do not alter the substance of the invention. To expand on this, there can be no doubt that image capture devices are extremely well know (noting that, for claim 1 and others, this device could be a barcode reader), as is the technology to send those images for display on remote screens. In the same way, “graphical tools” to manipulate displayed images are ubiquitous. The inclusion of these two elements in a scheme that requires a remote person to view and verify what was used to create medications to authorise the medication’s release (and, therefore, representing the “component version” of such a step), would not change the substance of the invention unless including those elements in the system required something more than “mere” routine implementation. In this regard, as I have already noted in this decision, the level of detail accompanying the discussion of these elements is very general. Clearly, what is being used is generic image capture devices and graphical tools that have been configured in the usual way and operated in their usual way. The mere fact of their presence in the claimed invention cannot provide a technical contribution or solve a technical problem.
[58] Further submissions at page 2
On the applicant’s submissions on eBay, while I note that the invention in eBay presented information regarding the optimal route between the user’s position and a point of interest given a level of detected congestion between them, and the present invention also presents information, I must note the delegate in eBay stated (in the passage quoted by the applicant):
“… I do not agree that, in combination, the claimed invention defines merely a presentation of information, an abstract idea or scheme, nor is it merely implementing a business process within a computer as the claims do not merely define such features.”[59] (my emphasis)
[59] eBay at [42]
That is, the delegate in eBay did not see the substance of the invention as being a scheme. In other words, while eBay resulted in a list of directions, the delegate found a technical contribution in creating that list. In my opinion, however, this finding cannot be made for the present matter. To my mind, the present claims do “merely” define implementation features. The exemplified claim 1 requires:
a memory (of any type) which has instructions of a program;
processors (of any sort) that can execute the program which:
monitors a data feed for medication orders;
provides a virtual queue listing medication orders;
identifies one of these orders;
aggregates this order with other orders having a same component (of any sort, not just an active ingredient);
displays the aggregated list;
receives a selection of the order;
captures (in any way) an image of the component used when preparing the order with (any type of) an image recording device;
displays the image to a remotely-located pharmacist;
receives an authorisation from the pharmacist, verifying that the medication was prepared with the component;
records the order as complete; and
provides a notification that the order is ready for delivery.
This level of genericity and functionality in the claims indicates that the components are not part of the substance of the present invention. Rather, what is claimed is a scheme that is “merely” computer-implemented.
A similar comment can be made of claim 22 set out above.
Technical solution to a technical problem
For similar reasons, I do not agree with the applicant’s argument that the invention prima facie provides a technical solution to a technical problem. While I can accept that the list of orders displayed can be updated as orders are received, filled and delivered, and the directions given eBay can be updated as other information is received, it remains the case that the delegate in eBay stated:
“Obtaining congestion information during the course of an event is clearly a technical problem that requires a technical solution and processing that information in a manner to present it to the user in the form of a recommended route to avoid the congestion is addressing a real and physical problem that, when implemented as per the claims, does produce a practical and useful result that is not related to a business process or business rules.”[60] (my emphasis)
[60] eBay at [41]
Claim 24 defines factors that are to be taken into account when determining the position of the medication order in the virtual queue.
I have some concerns about whether this amendment is allowable. The claim defines that the position in the queue is determined based upon “the estimated amount of time to deliver the available prepared medication or the unused medication to the delivery location”. The applicant refers to paragraphs [0044]–[0048] as providing support for this amendment. However, it is not clear to me that these paragraphs provide support for the feature of an order’s position in the queue being determined by the estimated time to deliver an unused medication to the patent’s location. Paragraphs [0044]–[0047] describe a process whereby the system determines whether a new order can be filled by a previously prepared medication and then provides route guidance to collect and/or deliver this previously prepared medication to the patient associated with the new order. Paragraph [0048] states:
“The processor 40 is further configured to place the order in a virtual queue of orders to be filled. The order for medication from the medication database 45 is placed in a position in the virtual queue determined based on various factors. The factors affecting the position of an order for medication in the virtual queue include, for example, an estimated amount of time to prepare the medication, an estimated amount of time to deliver the medication to a delivery location (e.g., delivery/drop location 50), an estimated time at which the medication will be needed for administration to a patient at the delivery location, a delivery deadline for the medication, a degree of urgency for delivery of the medication, a type of the medication, or a component of the medication.”
However, while there is clearly discussion of determining position in the queue based upon an estimated amount of time to deliver the medication, paragraph [0048] does not state that this is the delivery time of an unused medication. There is no nexus between what is discussed in this paragraph and what is described in paragraphs [0044]–[0047]. In any event, whether allowable or not, the outcome of my consideration on manner of manufacture remains the same.
The applicant submitted that:
“[t]he system thus assists the technician in preparing the medication orders and also assists the delivery person in delivering and retrieving medications in a manner which balances these constantly changing time constraints. As such, the features of the virtual queue displayed to the technician and the route presented to the delivery person are intertwined, each updated responsive to the dynamic actions of the technician, the delivery person and the authorising pharmacist and their interactions with the system.
As with claim 23, the combination of the physical components of the system and their claimed manner of combination results in a system which provides for user interaction in a simplified way not possible in systems of the prior art. This is a technical contribution akin to that in Aristocrat ‘16.”[68]
[68] Further submissions at pages 2–3
While I have no doubt that the system would assist the technician and the delivery person insofar as it provides indications of what to do next, it does not automatically follow that the system defined must be a manner of manufacture. In my opinion, like the other dependent claims, what is defined in claim 24 are further aspects of the administrative process involved in the logistics of managing a supply line. Delivery locations and estimated times of delivery are determined (in any way) and a position in a queue is determined (using any methodology) from those data points. This is simply an administrative instruction effectively saying to determine an order of items based upon where they must go and how long it will take to get there. That is administrative. It goes no further. While it may be true that no other system provided for this and is new, it is new precisely because of the scheme and not the technical solution and/or any technical effect (if there is one). This claim does not define a manner of manufacture.
Conclusion on dependent claims
It follows from this discussion that I do not believe that dependent claims 2–10, 12–19, 21, 23 and 24 define a manner of manufacture.
Conclusion
The claims do not define a manner of manufacture. The claimed invention is, in substance, a mere scheme and is not directed to a manner of manufacture. I see no prospect for amendments which would overcome the described deficiencies. The broad nature of the specification provides no meaningful technical detail that could be promoted into the claims. Accordingly, I refuse the application.
Additional observation
As to the divisional application 2022235592 that I mentioned earlier, while issue estoppel does not apply to proceedings before the Commissioner of Patents, it may be assumed that the present decision will be highly relevant to examination of the divisional application.
Greg Powell
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
Annex – Claims
1. A system for managing preparation and remote verification of a medication for a patient, the system comprising:
one or more processors; and
a memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause one or more processors to:monitor an electronic data feed for medication orders;
provide, based on monitoring the electronic data feed, for display at an output display device associated with a technician, an electronic virtual queue listing orders for medications to be prepared by the technician;
identify, from the orders, an order for medication associated with a patient;
aggregate the order with one or more other medication orders into an aggregated group of orders having a same type or a same component as the medication;
cause the aggregated group of orders to be displayed at the output display device such that the order is visually associated with the one or more other medication orders in the electronic virtual queue;
receive a user selection of the order associated with the patient;
capture, with an image recording device, an image or barcode associated with each component used by the technician to prepare the medication;
provide for display, on a remote display screen associated with a remote pharmacist responsible for authorizing the prepared medication, an indication of the order together with an identification of the patient and the image or barcode associated with each component used to prepare the medication associated with the order;
receive, from the remote pharmacist responsible for authorizing the prepared medication, after the indication and identification and the image or barcode are provided for display, a verification that the medication was prepared with each component;
record the order as being complete and available to the patient based on the verification; and
provide, responsive to receiving the verification, a notification regarding the completed order being ready for delivery to the patient.
2. The system of claim 1, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to:
aggregate a plurality of orders into batches based on respective component medications that are indicated by each of the plurality of orders;
select, based on at least a first component medication of the respective component medications, a first batch of orders;
determine medication containers that should be retrieved from a storage location to prepare the first batch of orders;
provide an indication of the medication containers for display on the output display device.
3. The system of claim 1 or claim 2, wherein the instructions, when executed, further
cause the one or more processors to:receive, from a recording device, the respective captured image or barcode of each component used to prepare the medication associated with the order.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to:
update, upon receiving the verification, the virtual queue to identify the medication as having been prepared and ready at a retrieval location for delivery to a delivery location.
5. The system of claim 3 or claim 4, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to:
receive a first automated notification provided by a first reader device at a retrieval location associated with a preparation of the medication, and a second automated notification provided by a second reader device on a delivery cart, based on respective scannings of an active identification device affixed to the medication by the first and second reader devices, the scannings occurring wirelessly without a scanning action taken by a participant;
store delivery progress information based on the first and second automated notifications, the delivery progress information including a last-known read location associated with the medication and a time of a last location reading at the last-known read location;
receive, from a tracking device, a tracking request for the delivery progress information; and
provide, responsive to the tracking request, the delivery progress information to the tracking device to inform a user of the last-known read location and time of the last location reading.
6. The system of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to:
identify an unused medication designated to be returned from a location associated with a patient before the unused medication is administered to the patient by a medical device designated to administer the unused medication to the patient;
determine whether the order for the medication can be filled with the unused medication when the unused medication is returned; and
provide for display a notification to fill the order with the unused medication when the unused medication is returned.
7. The system of claim 6, wherein determining whether the order for the medication can be filled with the unused medication is based on a comparison between at least two of an expiration time of the unused medication an estimated amount of time for delivering the unused medication to a preparation location, a time that the unused medication is to be administered to a patient, and a delivery deadline for the unused medication.
8. The system of claim 6 or claim 7, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to:
determine that the order for the medication can be filled with the unused medication and another returned medication,
wherein the notification indicates that the unused medication should be combined with another returned medication to fill the order.
9. The system of any one of claims 6 to 8, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to:
provide, for display at a computing device remote from the system, a notification configured to cause a display of a graphical visualization of a path by which a delivery person can retrieve the unused medication while delivering at least one other medication, overlaid on a graphically displayed map.
10. The system of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to:
identify a delivery location for the order for medication associated with the patient;
determine whether an order for another medication is ready for delivery to or near the delivery location; and
provide a notification to a device associated with a delivery person responsible for delivering the order for the medication to delay delivery of the other medication until the order has been filled.
11. A non-transitory machine-readable storage medium comprising machine-readable instructions for causing a computing device to perform operations comprising:
monitoring an electronic data feed for medication orders;
providing, based on monitoring the electronic data feed, for display at an output display device associated with a technician, an electronic virtual queue listing orders for medications to be prepared by the technician;
identifying, from the orders, an order for medication associated with a patient;
aggregating the order with one or more other medication orders into an aggregated group of orders having a same type or a same component as the medication;
causing the aggregated group of orders to be displayed at the output display device such that the order is visually associated with the one or more other medication orders in the electronic virtual queue;
receiving a user selection of the order associated with the patient;
capturing, with an image recording device, an image or barcode associated with each component used by the technician to prepare the medication;
providing for display, on a remote display screen associated with a remote pharmacist responsible for authorizing the prepared medication, an indication of the order together with an identification of the patient and the image or barcode associated with each component used to prepare the medication associated with the order;
receiving, from the remote pharmacist responsible for authorizing the prepared medication, after the indication and identification and the image or barcode are provided for display, a verification that the medication was prepared with each component; and
recording the order as being complete and available to the patient based on the verification; and
providing, responsive to receiving the verification, a notification regarding the completed order being ready for delivery to the patient.
12. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 11, the operations further comprising:
aggregating a plurality of orders into batches based on respective component medications that are indicated by each of the plurality of orders;
selecting, based on at least a first component medication of the respective component medications, a first batch of orders;
determining medication containers that should be retrieved from a storage location to prepare the first batch of orders;
providing an indication of the medication containers for display on the output display device.
13. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 11 or claim 12, the operations further comprising:
receiving, from a recording device, the respective captured image or barcode of each component used to prepare the medication associated with the order.
14. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 13, the operations further comprising:
updating, upon receiving the verification, the virtual queue to identify the medication as having been prepared and ready at a retrieval location for delivery to a delivery location.
15. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 13 or claim 14, the operations further comprising:
receiving a first automated notification provided by a first reader device at a retrieval location associated with a preparation of the medication, and a second automated notification provided by a second reader device on a delivery cart, based on respective scannings of an active identification device affixed to the medication by the first and second reader devices, the scannings occurring wirelessly without a scanning action taken by a participant;
storing delivery progress information based on the first and second automated notifications, the delivery progress information including a last-known read location associated with the medication and a time of a last location reading at the last-known read location;
receiving, from a tracking device, a tracking request for the delivery progress information; and
providing, responsive to the tracking request, the delivery progress information to the tracking device to inform a user of the last-known read location and time of the last location reading.
16. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of any one of claims 11 to 15, the operations further comprising:
identifying an unused medication designated to be returned from a location associated with a patient before the unused medication is administered to the patient by a medical device designated to administer the unused medication to the patient;
determining whether the order for the medication can be filled with the unused medication when the unused medication is returned; and
providing for display a notification to fill the order with the unused medication when the unused medication is returned.
17. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 16, wherein determining whether the order for the medication can be filled with the unused medication is based on a comparison between at least two of an expiration time of the unused medication an estimated amount of time for delivering the unused medication to a preparation location, a time that the returned unused medication is to be administered to a patient, and a delivery deadline for the unused medication.
18. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of claim 16 or claim 17, the operations further comprising:
determine that the order for the medication can be filled with the unused medication and another returned medication,
wherein the notification indicates that the unused medication should be combined with another returned medication to fill the order.
19. The non-transitory machine-readable storage medium of any one of claims 16 to 18, the operations further comprising:
provide, for display at a system remote from the computing device, a notification configured to cause a display of a graphical visualization of a path by which a delivery person can retrieve the unused medication while delivering at least one other medication, overlaid on a graphically displayed map.
20. A method for managing preparation and remote verification of a medication for a patient, the method comprising:
monitoring an electronic data feed for medication orders;
providing, based on monitoring the electronic data feed, for display at an output display device associated with a technician, an electronic virtual queue listing orders for medications to be prepared by the technician;
identifying, from the orders, an order for medication associated with a patient;
aggregating the order with one or more other medication orders into an aggregated group of orders having a same type or a same component as the medication;
causing the aggregated group of orders to be displayed at the output display device such that the order is visually associated with the one or more other medication orders in the electronic virtual queue;
receiving a user selection of the order associated with the patient;
capturing, with an image recording device, an image or barcode associated with each component used by the technician to prepare the medication;
providing for display, on a remote display screen associated with a remote pharmacist responsible for authorizing the prepared medication, an indication of the order together with an identification of the patient and the image or barcode associated with each component used to prepare the medication associated with the order;
receiving, from the remote pharmacist responsible for authorizing the prepared medication, after the indication and identification and the image or barcode are provided for display, a verification that the medication was prepared with each component; and
recording the order as being complete and available to the patient based on the verification; and
providing, responsive to receiving the verification, a notification regarding the completed order being ready for delivery to the patient.
21. The system of any one of claims 1 to 10, wherein the instructions, when executed, further cause the one or more processors to:
provide, on the display screen associated with a user responsible for authorizing the prepared medication, a magnification following a cursor of an input device to assist the user responsible for authorizing the prepared medication in viewing the image or barcode associated with each component used to prepare the medication the medication associated with the order.
22. A system for managing preparation and remote verification of a medication for a patient, the system comprising:
an image recording device;
one or more processors; anda memory comprising instructions that, when executed by the one or more processors, cause one or more processors to:
monitor an electronic data feed, the electronic data feed including data indicating medication orders;
provide, for display at an output device, an electronic virtual queue in which orders for medications to be prepared are listed and updated in real time based on changes from the electronic data feed;
receive, based on monitoring the electronic data feed, information indicative of an order for medication for a patient from the electronic data feed;
determine a position of the order for the medication in a virtual queue configured to display multiple medication orders having a same type or a same component as the medication;
provide, for display at the output device, the virtual queue and an indicator of the order for the medication at the position in the virtual queue among respective indicators of the multiple medication orders having the same type or the same component as the medication;
receive a first user selection of the order associated with the patient;
provide for display each medication component to be picked from inventory to prepare the multiple medication orders with the order associated with the patient;
capture, using the image recording device, an image or video representative of each medication component used to prepare the medication associated with the order;
send, after the first user selection and the capturing, to a display screen remote from the output device for display to a remote user responsible for authorizing the prepared medication, the captured image or video representative of each medication component used to prepare the medication associated with the order;
provide, together with the respective captured images, a display of one or more graphical tools configured to assist the remote user in viewing and verifying the respective image and a display of one or more disposition controls for verifying that the medication was correctly prepared with each component;
receive, after the respective captured images are provided for display on the display screen with the one or more graphical tools, a second user selection of the one or more disposition controls, initiated by the remote user responsible for authorizing the prepared medication and indicating verification that the medication was correctly prepared with each component; and
provide to a device separate from the one or more processors, based on the second user selection and verification, a notification that the respective order is available for the patient.
23. The system of claim 9, wherein the graphic visualization of the path is updated in real-time to display an efficient route for retrieving the unused medication while delivering the at least one other medication, wherein the route is identified based on an estimated amount of time for retrieving the unused medication and one or more of: an expiration time of the unused medication; a time that the unused medication is to be administered to a patient; and a delivery deadline for the unused medication.
24. The system of any one of claims 6 to 10 or claims 21 to 23, wherein the instructions, when executed further cause the one or more processors to:
identify a delivery location for the order for medication associated with the patient;
estimate an amount of time for delivering the available prepared medication or the unused medication to the delivery location;
determine a position of the order for the medication in the virtual queue based on the estimated amount of time to deliver the available prepared medication or the unused medication to the delivery location.
2
19
0