CareFusion 303, Inc.
[2022] APO 40
•17 June 2022
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
CareFusion 303, Inc. [2022] APO 40
Patent Application: 2014268829
Title:Medication retrieval optimization
Patent Applicant: CareFusion 303, Inc.
Delegate:Greg Powell
Decision Date: 17 June 2022
Hearing Date: Written submissions filed on 22 September 2021
Catchwords: PATENTS – examiner objection – manner of manufacture – amendments made following adverse finding of hearing officer – invention in substance directed to a mere scheme – alleged invention not a manner of manufacture – no utility in continuing examination – application refused
Representation: Patent attorney for the applicant: FB Rice Pty Ltd, Sydney
IP AUSTRALIA
AUSTRALIAN PATENT OFFICE
Patent Application: 2014268829
Title:Medication retrieval optimization
Patent Applicant: CareFusion 303, Inc.
Date of Decision: 17 June 2022
DECISION
Amendments and submissions made do not overcome the finding in the original decision of CareFusion 303, Inc. [2021] APO 12 that the claims are directed to non-patentable subject matter. Furthermore, there is no utility in providing further opportunity to the applicant to continue examination.
I refuse the application.
REASONS FOR DECISION
Background
Patent application 2014268829 was filed by CareFusion 303, Inc (the applicant) on 16 May 2014. Following four adverse examination reports which stated that the claimed invention was not a manner of manufacture, the applicant requested to be heard. A hearing was held, and a decision of the Deputy Commissioner of Patents issued on 26 February 2021 (CareFusion 303, Inc. [2021] APO 12 – the first decision). The first decision found that the invention as claimed was not a manner of manufacture. Nevertheless, the applicant was provided further opportunity to propose amendments to address the first decision.
The first decision
As noted in the first decision, the invention relates to a system for managing the retrieval of medication after it has been distributed but not used. The system uses computers. The specification states that one aspect of the invention involves determining the location of unused medication and determining the order in which to retrieve unused medications:
“The method includes receiving an identification of a plurality of unused medications and a current location of each of the plurality of unused medications, and determining an order in which to retrieve at least two of the plurality of unused medications and return the at least two of the plurality of unused medications to a return location.”[1]
[1] See [0007]
The first decision noted the use of ID devices attached to the medications to determine the medication’s location, with the system providing a prioritisation of medications to be retrieved, and even suggesting a route to locate the medications. The nature of the system that carries out the process, the computer(s) used, as well as the program instructions encoded on the computer system are noted in the first decision to be disclosed at a very general level.
The Deputy Commissioner noted that:
“The advantages of this system are twofold. First, the system provides a suggested route for a person to follow to retrieve medications (which would likely involve time savings). Second, the retrieval of discontinued medications can allow them to be reused rather than being wasted.”[2]
[2] The first decision at [15]
The Deputy Commissioner also noted that (having provided claim 1):
“The hardware elements of the system are simple to understand: readers for an ID device, a memory and a processor. The system also includes active ID devices attached to packages. The system receives information about orders for medication and unused medications. The system creates a list of medications to retrieve which is sent to a mobile device.”[3]
[3] Ibid at [21]
Having reviewed the caselaw on manner of manufacture, and noting that later decisions of the Federal Court of Australia did not see the need to correct the findings of Commissioner of Patents v RPL Central Pty Ltd[4] [ (RPL Central), the Deputy Commissioner noted the oft-quoted passage from his decision in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited[5] (Aristocrat 16) which summarises the considerations arising from RPL Central as:
[4] [2015] FCAFC 177, 115 IPR 461
[5] [2016] APO 49, 123 IPR 341
“I conclude that it is relevant to consider a range of matters. Without seeking to be exhaustive, these include:
• there must be more than an abstract idea, mere scheme or mere intellectual information;
• is the contribution of the claimed invention technical in nature;
• does the invention solve a technical problem within the computer or outside the computer;
• does the invention result in improvement in the functioning of the computer, irrespective of the data being processed;
• does the application of the method produce a practical and useful result;
• can it be broadly described as an improvement in computer technology;
• does the method merely require generic computer implementation;
• is the computer merely an intermediary or tool for performing the method while adding nothing of substance to the idea;
• is there ingenuity in the way in which the computer is utilised;
• does the invention involve steps that are foreign to the normal use of computers;
and
• does the invention lie in the generation, presentation or arrangement of intellectual information.”[6]
[6] Aristocrat 16 at [35]
Having noted that Claim 1 was directed to a system having several physical integers which received input information about orders for medication, and programmed to create a list of medications to be retrieved which could be sent to a mobile device along with a route for retrieving the medications, the Deputy Commissioner discussed the contribution of the invention. The Deputy Commissioner did not consider that the system was “a machine of particular construction” in line with the decision (since overturned) in Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Limited v Commissioner of Patents[7] (Aristocrat 20).
[7] [2020] FCA 778
While noting that that the system was constructed of well-known, generic computing elements, the Deputy Commissioner could not say whether the arrangement of the system as a whole was usual. Nevertheless, the Deputy Commissioner did not see that the invention solved a technical problem in the computer, did not consider that there was an improvement in the computer, and did not see any steps foreign to the normal use of computers.
When considering whether there was a “practical and useful result”, the Deputy Commissioner stated (at [48]–[51] – emphasis in the original):
“48The next question in this case is whether there is a practical and useful result. Not every result which might colloquially be considered useful is relevant. In [Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents[8] (Research Affiliates)] it was stated that it is not an artificial or patentable effect to merely implement a scheme:
[8] [2014] FCAFC 150, 109 IPR 364
‘To take the words of [National Research Development Corporation v Commissioner of Patents [1959] HCA 67, 102 CLR 252 (NRDC)] at 268, the process does not produce “either immediately or ultimately, a useful physical result in relation to a material or tangible entity.” The claimed method, the result of the ingenuity of the inventors, does not produce such a result; the ingenuity is in the scheme. Again, drawing from NRDC at 270, there is a useful result of the claimed process but there is no physical thing “brought into existence or so affected as the better to serve man's purposes”. There is no “physical phenomenon in which the effect, be it creation or merely alteration, may be observed” (NRDC at 276).’ (at [114])
49I note that the system displays an ordered list of medications. The mere presentation of information on a display is not sufficient, of itself, to provide a useful result. However, the purpose of the system is to present improved information regarding retrieval of medicines in a pharmacy that will allow a reduction in the wastage of medicines.
50It has been stated in a series of decisions involving applications by Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. [Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. [2017] APO 38 (Bio-Rad 2017), Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. [2018] APO 24 (Bio-Rad 2018), Bio-Rad Laboratories, Inc. [2019] APO 26 (Bio-Rad 2019)] that an improved process that allowed a machine to be maintained operational had an artificial effect:
‘the resulting reduction in the number of tests to be carried out and the reduction in the number of reference samples that are used are, in my view, “artificial effects”’
‘I find the consequent reduced amount of current test sampling required to compute a variability estimate and establish a statistically valid assay range in this case is a physically observable effect within the meaning of that phrase as described in NRDC.’
51The practical and useful result of reduced wastage is only achieved when the medications are retrieved and returned to the pharmacy in time to be reused. In the absence of timely retrieval and/or use by a pharmacist, there is no potential for such a result. I conclude that a practical and useful result can be achieved by the use of the system but is not assured.”
The Deputy Commissioner then noted that the invention involved the generation and presentation of information by ordering the list of medications for retrieval, but concluded that it would not be fair to say that the list was simply intellectual information. He noted that the information was not presented so that the staff member could decide which medication to retrieve next, but that the decision had been made by the system, and the order had been optimised in order to deliver the desired result.
The first decision then concludes by noting:
“54The invention uses generic computing technology to execute a scheme. The result lies in the field of pharmaceuticals, an area that is not inherently unpatentable.
55The 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 (retrieving the medications). 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 ordering of the retrievals. However, claim 1 is not limited to situations in which this advantage is assured.
56It is useful to consider where the ingenuity lies. There is no evidence of ingenuity in implementing the process on a system, or in preparing the system. This normally indicates that the ingenuity lies in the way that the list is ordered rather than the implementation. In [D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc.[9]] it was noted [at [134]] that there was ingenuity in the idea of looking for mutation in a person's BRCA1 gene. However, that was not sufficient to save the invention as it was further necessary to ask whether the claimed subject matter makes a contribution to that idea:
[9] [2015] HCA 35
“Such ingenuity as that entails consists in the idea of examining an isolated fragment of a patient's naturally occurring DNA constituted of the BRCA1 gene for the presence or absence of the specified mutations and polymorphisms. The subject matter of the claim does not make any contribution to the inclusion of the specified mutations and polymorphisms in the mutated BRCA1 gene”
57In the present case it is hard to be sure whether there has been ingenuity in recognising a shortcoming in any existing system and identifying the need to either retrieve unused medications or alter the order in which the medicines are retrieved.
58It is logical that the ordering of the list could be carried out manually, but as the invention is dealing with time critical steps (so as to avoid wastage of pharmaceuticals), the use of a computer to carry out its steps is an integral part of the way that the invention works and contributes to the invention.
59There 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 in the scheme for ordering the orders to be retrieved rather 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. I conclude that the contribution to the invention of claim 1 is a scheme. The same conclusion applies to the claims that are appended to claim 1: claims 2 – 6.”
That is, the Deputy Commissioner was of the opinion that there was a practical and useful effect from the invention of reducing wastage of medications, but it was not clear where the ingenuity lay to achieve this effect. As such, it was not clear whether the contribution was the scheme of generating an ordered list of medications to be retrieved, or the system on which that scheme was implemented. The applicant was given an opportunity to address this lack of clarity and positively link the system to the contribution. The applicant took the opportunity.
As such, it is my task to determine whether the amendments proposed by the applicant have resulted in the claimed system being linked to the contribution.
Applicant response to decision
The applicant responded on 14 May 2021 with amendments made to the independent claims. There then followed a conversation with the examiner who indicated that (i) at least some of the amendments were not allowable and (ii) they were inclined to maintain the objection that the claims did not define a manner of manufacture. In response to this, the applicant then filed a further response on 21 May 2021 with further amendments to the independent claims.
As the amendments to all independent claims was essentially the same, I will only show the amendment to claim 1, which was as follows (strikethroughs and underlining respectively show deletions and additions to the claims considered by the Deputy Commissioner in the first decision):
1. A system for managing a retrieval of a prepared medication, the system comprising:
one or more active identification (ID) devices affixed to respective packages of one or more medications prepared for delivery, the active ID device configured to transmit signals containing identification information through a wireless link;
one or more reader devices configured to receive medication identification information via a signal generated and transmitted wirelessly from the active ID device when the active ID device is within a proximity of the one or more reader devices, without a scanning action performed by a participant;
a memory comprising instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
receive, via a network from a wireless bridge, identification information read from respective active identification devices affixed to respective packages of respective medications of a plurality of delivered medications as a result of the active identification devices passing within a proximity of the one or more reader devices, and the identification information being transmitted to the wireless bridge without a scanning action performed by a participant, the received identification information including a respective location within a healthcare facility of the respective medications;
determine, based on the received identification information, an identification of a plurality of unused medications that have been designated as discontinued before being administered to a patient, the plurality of unused medications including a first unused medication for a first patient that was delivered to the first patient’s location in the healthcare facility and is ready for retrieval from the first patient’s location, and a current location of each of the plurality of unused medications including an identification of each current location;
determine
, based on receiving a new order for a medication that can be filled using the first unused medication,an order in which to retrieve the plurality of unused medications and return the plurality of unused medications to a return location based on an expiration date of at least one of the unused medications, an estimated amount of time to retrieve at least one of the unused medications, an estimated distance associated with retrieving at least one of the unused medications,a degree of urgency associated with at least one of the unused medications,and an estimated cost of at least one of the unused medications;receive a new order for a medication;
determine that the new order can be filled with a respective unused medication of the plurality of unused medications; and
responsive to determining that the new order can be filled with the respective unused medication and that the respective unused medication is associated with a high priority value:
sort the order in which to retrieve the plurality of unused medications so that the respective unused medication is retrieved immediately; and
provide, to a mobile device remote from the system, for display by the mobile device, a listing of at least two of the plurality of unused medications based on the order for retrieving the at least two of the plurality of unused medications and an indication to immediately retrieve the respective unused medication, the listing including a graphical visualization of a route on a graphical map of the healthcare facility, the route indicating the order for retrieving the at least two of the plurality of unused medication from the respective current locations and returning the at least two of the plurality of unused medications to the return location, the visualization of the route being updated based on a current location of the mobile device;
receive confirmation that the respective unused medication was retrieved; and
fill the new order using the respective unused medication.
The full claim set is given in the Annex to this decision.
Examiner objection following response
The examiner remained of the view that the substance of the claims did not define a manner of manufacture. The examiner recognised that the invention had a practical and useful effect but considered that the substance of the claimed invention was a scheme to optimise the retrieval of unused medications. The objection reads (formatting, bolding, underlining and italics as per the original):
“Thank you for the responses filed on 14 May and 21 May 2021. The Applicant’s submissions have been carefully considered, but are found to be unpersuasive. Objection 7 from the previous examination report is maintained. Claims 1-13 as proposed to be amended still do not define a manner of manufacture within the meaning of Section 18(1)(a) of the Patents Act 1990.
The Applicant has submitted that ‘the physical features of the active ID, reader device, memory and processor all combine to produce a system which yields a practical and useful result, namely the filling of an order using an unused medication that would otherwise go to waste.’
I agree that the claimed invention as proposed to be amended results in a practical and useful effect in the form of the potential for reduced wastage by the action of reusing unused medications, as asserted by the Applicant. It is noted that this potential for reduced wastage does not appear to manifest further in the claim to create an active step which necessarily avoids the ‘throwing out’ of unused material. Regardless, although considering whether a claimed invention results in a practical and useful effect is a relevant factor in determining whether a claimed invention is directed to a manner of manufacture, it is not sufficient on its own to confer patentability; it must be weighed alongside the other factors outlined by the Courts. Part of this weighting involves the consideration of where the ingenuity lies in the claimed invention, and whether the practical and useful effect necessarily arises from this ingenuity. Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150 at [114] encapsulates this concept:
‘To take the words of NRDC at 268, the process does not produce “either immediately or ultimately, a useful physical result in relation to a material or tangible entity.” The claimed method, the result of the ingenuity of the inventors, does not produce such a result; the ingenuity is in the scheme. Again, drawing from NRDC at 270, there is a useful result of the claimed process but there is no physical thing “brought into existence or so affected as the better to serve man's purposes”. There is no “physical phenomenon in which the effect, be it creation or merely alteration, may be observed” (NRDC at 276).’
After careful consideration of the specification as a whole, I have concluded that the ingenuity of the claimed invention does not lie in the filling of an order using an unused medication that would otherwise go to waste. [0005] of the description outlines the problem the claimed invention seeks to solve, stating that ‘an unused medication … may remain at the discharged patient location or another location beyond an expiration date for the medication, thus causing the medication to go to waste.’ Time limits imposed on the consumption of a medication due to expiration dates are well-known problems in the art, and as a result I consider that seeking to reduce the amount of medication that goes unused beyond its expiration date is a trite and well-traversed consideration for the person skilled in the art. It is plainly common sense and routinely applied to any number of situations (for example, a home kitchen) that reusing unused but usable items provides the potential to avoid wastage. Thus, the ingenuity of the claimed invention must lie elsewhere.
The claimed invention recites a number of features concerning a computer system that comprises the steps of: determining an unused medication, determining an order in which to retrieve the unused medication, receiving a new order for a medication, determining that the new order can be filled with the unused medication, sorting the retrieval order so that the required unused medication is retrieved immediately, providing a graphical listing of locations of the unused medication, receiving a confirmation that the unused medication was retrieved, and filling the new order using the unused medication.
This combination of features is only linked so as to implement the scheme of optimising the retrieval of unused medications, and as such this is where the ingenuity of the claimed invention is considered to lie. Indeed, I note that the Applicant in their response states that ‘the system is purpose-built to enable a user to identify (in real time) and track unused medications via virtualisation of the graphical map of the healthcare facility’ [emphasis added].
Having determined where the ingenuity of the claimed invention lies, consistent with Research Affiliates, it is useful to consider whether an improved practical and useful effect necessarily arises from this ingenuity. In other words, does the ingenuity produce the requested result, or does the ingenuity lie in the scheme? Consider the following analogy:
There exists an invention that is directed to a scheme for arranging the building of a house and contains the feature “build the house”. In this instance, the building of the house is indeed a practical and useful effect. However, the house is not a physical structure that was brought into existence as a result of the invention itself. The construction of the house is merely a step in the scheme, not the result of any ingenuity on behalf of the inventor. As such, the invention is in substance a mere scheme, and the presence of the step “build the house” does not automatically confer patentability (see [38] of Invention Pathways Pty Ltd [2010] APO 10).
Thus, with regard to the present application, the scheme of optimising the informative process guiding the retrieval of unused medications does not become patentable simply because it includes the physical step of ‘fill the new order using the respective unused medication.’ This effect is not achieved due to the invention itself. As per [114] of Research Affiliates:
‘The claimed method, the result of the ingenuity of the inventors, does not produce such a result; the ingenuity is in the scheme.’
Furthermore, as briefly mentioned above, I also do not consider that the invention as currently claimed guarantees a specified physical effect of less wastage. Although the claims do specify that unused medication is used to fill a new order, they do not specify an active step that provides for the avoidance of wasting material (for example, the active avoidance of throwing material away). Regardless, it does not appear to me that such an active limitation in the claims would disturb my findings as outlined in this report.
Therefore, while I agree that the claimed invention as proposed to be amended does indeed yield a practical and useful effect as specified above, I do not consider that this is sufficient in weight to shift the balance of considerations against the ingenuity that appears to remain in the other details of the scheme.
The Applicant also submits that ‘the computer elements of the invention are integral to the invention in that the system solves a real-world problem.’
However, although the computer elements of the claimed invention may be integral to the invention, they do not form part of the substance of the claimed invention – that is, the core idea of the invention. The computer and associated technical elements in the claims are merely the intermediary, configured to carry out the specific steps that define the form of the claimed invention, but itself adding nothing to the substance of the claimed invention. That is, the technical components are generic components that could be configured to perform any number of different steps in different ways. The computer itself, and the associated technical components, while integral to the invention, do not add to the substance of the invention.
Furthermore, simply solving a real-world problem is also not sufficient in itself to confer patentability onto the claimed invention – it must also be ‘technical’ or provide for some ‘material advantage’ as a matter of substance. The claimed invention sorts a list of medications so that unused medications are retrieved immediately to fill a new order. This is merely an administrative process regarding what medication to use – i.e. a scheme – and as such is not technical in nature.
In summary, the claimed invention assists in addressing the need to avoid the wastage of unused medications and thereby solves a real-world problem. However, the substance of the claimed invention is a scheme involving informative steps and instructions to logistically optimise the retrieval of unused medications. Although the claims as a whole result in a practical and useful effect, such an effect is not by itself sufficient to confer patentability. Furthermore, the effect of reduced wastage as such is still not guaranteed. As a result, the effect is not sufficient to shift the balance of considerations. The claimed invention does not involve anything that can be considered to be an improvement in computer technology or provide a technical solution to a technical problem.
Therefore, for the above reasons, the claimed invention as a matter of substance does not
define subject matter suitable for a patent.”Hearing request
The applicant in fact requested a hearing prior to the examiner’s report given the fact that the examiner had told them that they intended to issue an adverse report. The applicant filed submissions on 22 September 2021.
The law on manner of manufacture
The law is set out in the first decision. The principles remain the same and, as such, I will not set them out here. There is only one thing that I would note and that is that the decision of Burley J in Aristocrat 20, which the applicant briefly refers to in their submissions, has since been set aside by the Full Court in Commissioner of Patents v Aristocrat Technologies Australia Pty Ltd[10] (“Aristocrat 21”). I will discuss this change in my decision.
[10] [2021] FCAFC 202
Applicant’s submissions
In their submissions, having covered the history of the application and the manner of manufacture objections raised, the applicant raised four broad lines of argument as to why the amended claims were directed to a manner of manufacture. They were:
·The invention is not a ‘mere scheme’
·The use of generic computer components is not a bar to patentability
·The ingenuity of the inventors lies in patentable subject matter
·The invention provides a practical and useful result arising from the inventors’ ingenuity
I will summarise the submissions under these headings.
The invention is not a ‘mere scheme’
The applicant submitted that the examiner’s approach in deciding that the computer elements of the claim, while integral to the invention (in being configured to carry out the steps), did not form part of the substance of the claimed invention, represented an “impermissible stripping back of the features of the claimed invention” which had “effect of obscuring the ingenuity of the inventors and reducing the determined substance of the invention to a mere scheme.”[11]
[11] Applicant’s submissions at [13]
The applicant noted that “the courts have made clear that patentability is not provided merely by implementation of a method or scheme in an electronic processing device which itself is not characterised”. However, they submitted that their claimed invention had “a specific combination of specific physical devices having a specific physical manner of interacting with each other”[12]. They noted that the claims required that the active ID device and reader device have an automatic proximity-based communication with each other, and submitted that a proximity-based ID device and reader interaction was not part of the well-known functions of a generic computer. They submitted that:
“… the specific combination of software and hardware components, and their claimed interaction, forms the substance of the invention. The active ID devices and the reader devices of the claimed invention function together with the processor to provide to the user (responsive to receiving a new order for a medication and determining the order can be filled with an unused medication) a route for retrieving medications that are identified as unused before they expire and which route is updated in real time based on the location of the user.”[13]
[12] Ibid at [15]
[13] Ibid at [16]
As such, the applicant concluded that the components could not be disregarded. The applicant submitted that the decision of Justice Burley J in Aristocrat 20 confirmed that the approach of considering only the components of the claim invented by the applicant and determining whether or not the invention is a mere scheme from that was incorrect and “rather puts the cart before the horse”.
The use of generic computer components is not a bar to patentability
The applicant did not agree that the claimed components were generic components, or that the arrangement of active ID devices and reader devices and their interaction could be considered generic computer functionality. However, the applicant submitted that, even if they were generic components, the use of generic components was not a bar to patentability.
They applicant submitted that the system in eBay Inc.[14] (“eBay”) and the system of the present application were very similar, and that the reasoning of eBay was closely analogous. They noted that:
“… the eBay invention involved a system of disparate computer components that were each substantially generic in nature. The eBay invention included obtaining of information from the disparate computer components, automatically and in a timely manner. Furthermore, the eBay invention included steps directed to the determination of a course of action, and the graphical presentation to a user of information to allow the user to perform the course of action.”[15]
[14] [2020] APO 49
[15] Applicant’s submissions at [19]
The applicant noted that eBay at [40] stated that:
“After reading the specification as a whole the substance of the invention appears to lie in the combination of the integers that solve a technical problem of determining not only location and time, but also crowd congestion at a venue and, at specific times during the event, to determine changes to a route to reach a desired point of interest efficiently that are then displayed on the device in a particular manner to benefit the user in navigating to and from the point of interest”. (emphasis in submissions),
and also noted that [41] 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 problem or business rules” (emphasis in submission).
The applicant stated that the invention of the present application obtained the location of medication in a healthcare facility (by the automatic scanning of active identification devices affixed to the package of the medication), and determined that the medication was unused and could be used to fill a new order. The applicant submitted that the timely, automatic determination was clearly a technical problem that required a technical solution, and the technical solution was not known in the art and, as such, would be a technical contribution to the state of the art[16].
[16] Ibid at [22]
The applicant also submitted that the claimed steps of notifying a user via their mobile device to retrieve the unused medication and providing a visual map to retrieve the unused medication in a priority order, as well as updating the route based on a current location of the mobile device, addressed a real and physical problem that, when implemented as claimed, produced a practical and useful result that was not related to a business problem or business rules[17].
[17] Ibid at [23]
The applicant noted the following in paragraph [42] of eBay (referring to the non-exhaustive dot in Aristocrat 16 – see paragraph [6] above):
“I can agree with the examiner that a mere presentation of information, or, for that matter, an abstract idea simply implemented into a computer is not a manner of manufacture. I can also agree that the individual components have been discussed as being well known and that the individual components have not been improved in any technical manner. However, 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 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.
The applicant concluded that the use of generic computer components should not be a bar to patentability.
The ingenuity of the inventors lies in patentable subject matter
The applicant submitted that the examiner, when setting out what the ingenuity of the inventors was (i.e. that which adds to the sum of human knowledge as per D’Arcy v Myriad Genetics Inc.[18], at [130]), appeared to have made “a conceptual leap from the consideration of an overarching aim of the invention to the consideration of an overly simplified view of the claimed system which fails to consider the specific features of the claimed system”[19].
[18] [2015] HCA 35
[19] Applicant’s submissions at [28]
While not disagreeing with the examiner that it may be a desirable to reduce the amount of unused, expired, medication, the applicant submitted that they did not see why the person skilled in the art would try to reduce this by using the system claimed. The applicant noted that the claimed system had not been found to lack novelty or inventive step, which is of importance when seeking to establish the state of the art[20].
[20] Ibid at [29]
The applicant submitted that other solutions to the problem of reducing the amount of unused, expired medication could involve collecting unused medications and returning them to the pharmacy, undertaking demand forecasting and seeking to match supply with demand in a timely manner, or possibly producing medications when required. The applicant submitted that the inventors of the present invention had addressed the problem of unused medication going to waste, by developing a scheme for retrieving medication and filling a new order with the unused medication. However, the applicant noted that the scheme could have been implemented with different system configurations, each of which would involve different technical solutions and have differing attributes[21]. The applicant submitted:
“The present invention provides a specific arrangement of technical components in combination with a specific arrangement of steps to actualise the scheme for retrieving medication. The ingenuity applied by the inventors in developing this specific technical solution elevates the claimed invention from a mere scheme to a solution that constitutes patentable subject matter” (emphasis in original)[22],
and that:
“… the ingenuity of the invention lies not in the mere concept of reducing medication waste, nor does it lie in the mere concept of identifying unused medications and reallocating them to a new order. The ingenuity of the invention lies in the specific combination of intercommunicating components and the steps provided by these components which provides the user with the actionable information that allows the unused medication to be retrieved and reused.”[23]
[21] Ibid at [32]–[33]
[22] Ibid at [35]
[23] Ibid at [36]
The invention provides a practical and useful result arising from the inventors’ ingenuity
The applicant drew my attention to [51] and [55] of the first decision:
51The practical and useful result of reduced wastage is only achieved when the medications are retrieved and returned to the pharmacy in time to be reused. In the absence of timely retrieval and/or use by a pharmacist, there is no potential for such a result. I conclude that a practical and useful result can be achieved by the use of the system but is not assured.
55The 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 (retrieving the medications). 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 ordering of the retrievals. However, claim 1 is not limited to situations in which this advantage is assured.
The applicant submitted that the examiner’s conclusion that claimed system still did not guarantee the practical and useful effect of reduced wastage took too narrow a view of what constituted the invention’s practical and useful result. The applicant submitted that the claim now required the steps of receiving confirmation that the unused medication had been retrieved and filling the new order using the retrieved unused medication. The applicant submitted that this meant the claim included within its scope the reallocation of the unused medication to a new order, thereby providing a feasible and defined future use for the unused medication, which avoided wastage of the medication. The applicant contrasted this with the situation before the invention where unused medication had no feasible and defined future use and, as time progressed, the medication would naturally progress to being wasted. Accordingly, the claimed system achieved a practical and useful result.[24]
[24] Ibid at [40]–[41]
The applicant took issue with the examiner’s use of the analogy set out in [38] of Invention Pathways Pty Ltd[25] (“Invention Pathways”) (which was taken from the earlier decision of Peter Szabo and Associates Pty Ltd[26] at [46]). The examiner’s reasoning (as is shown above) was that that a step of building a house, in an invention that was otherwise concerned with the contractual arrangement of acquiring the house, was peripheral to the invention and was not produced by the invention.[27] The applicant contrasted the situation of the Invention Pathways analogy, where the house was built before it was acquired, to what it said was the present invention. The applicant submitted that in the present invention the unused medication was retrieved, and the new order was filled after the system had determined that the new order could be filled with unused medication. The applicant noted that:
“… the steps taken by the system directly results in the unused medication being retrieved and the new order being filled by the unused medication. As such, there is a causal link between the claimed steps and the practical and useful result of retrieving and reallocating unused medication that is not found in the example of Invention Pathways.”[28] (emphasis in original)
[25] [2010] APO 10
[26] [2005] APO 24
[27] Applicant’s submissions at [42]–[43]
[28] Ibid at [44]
The applicant submitted that the house-building analogy of Invention Pathways was more akin to:
“… effectively determining what materials and labour are required to build a house, and then applying that method to build the house. In that example, the concrete physical effect is not peripheral to the method. Rather, the concrete physical effect is directly tied to the method”[29],
noting that, in Invention Pathways, the delegate said at [38] that, in applying the decision in Grant:
“the ‘concrete effect or phenomenon or manifestation or transformation’ referred to must be one that is significant both in that it is concrete but also that it is central to the purpose or operation of the claimed process or otherwise arises from the combination of steps of the method in a substantial way.”[30] (emphasis in submission)
[29] Ibid at [45]
[30] Ibid at [46]
The applicant concluded:
“The purpose of the claimed system is to provide an effective system of communicating components and a series of steps to actuate the concrete effect of retrieving unused medication and filling a new order with the unused medication. In other words, the fundamental character of the claimed system is inextricably tied to the eventual effect, as required by Invention Pathways and the effect is not merely an unintended or indirect consequence of the claimed system.
Research Affiliates LLC v Commissioner of Patents [2014] FCAFC 150 (hereafter Research Affiliates) does not change this requirement of Invention Pathways. In Research Affiliates, at [150], the Court stated ‘[t]he invention is to be understood as a matter of substance and not merely as a matter of form’.
As submitted above, the ingenuity of the inventors lies in the specific combination of intercommunicating components and the steps provided by these components. There is a direct causal link between the ingenuity of the inventors and the practical and useful effect of the invention, meaning that the practical and useful result arises from the ingenuity of the inventors”[31]
[31] Ibid at [47]–[49]
Consideration
I will address these four lines of arguments individually.
The invention is not a ‘mere scheme’
It is noted that the examiner did not explicitly state in their objection that the invention was a “mere scheme”. There is no doubt that the examiner characterised the invention as a “scheme”, but, in my opinion, that use of “scheme” is to be understood in the broad context established by the caselaw. In this regard, I note it was said in RPL:
“The basis for the analysis starts with the fact that a business method, or mere scheme, is not, per se, patentable.”[32]
This conceptual coalescence of mere schemes, business methods and the like is something that is seen in the case law. As such, “scheme” is often used as simply shorthand for “non-patentable things”. It is not the case that such must be shown to be mere schemes. Rather, a scheme that is not a manner of manufacture is, by this fact, a “mere” scheme.
[32] RPL Central at [96]
Moreover, while it is the case that the claim has both hardware and software components in it, this is also not determinative. The presence of hardware within the claim does not automatically make a claimed invention patentable. By the same token, the absence of hardware from a claim does not automatically make a claimed invention non-patentable.
It is always the case that the determination of the substance of an invention is an exercise in determining what has been invented and what, in substance, is the invention. This does not involve assessing which component(s) of the claim the specification indicates was invented by the applicant to the exclusion of all other features. Rather, it involves understanding the essence of the invention.
It is to this point that the overturning of Burley J’s decision in Aristocrat 20 becomes important.
As noted by the applicant, Burley J stated in Aristocrat 20 that:
“… the characterisation of the invention taken by the delegate and the Commissioner, insofar as they first identify the “inventive concept” and then utilise that concept to conclude that the invention is a mere scheme … rather puts the cart before the horse”[33]
[33] Aristocrat 20 at [99]
This is the approach that the applicant decries, submitting that this is the approach taken by the examiner. As noted by the applicant, Burley J stated that the correct approach:
“… involves an initial question of whether the claimed invention is for a mere scheme or business method of the type that is not the proper subject matter of a grant of letters patent. Once that question is answered in the affirmative, the subsequent inquiry becomes whether the computer-implemented method is one where invention lay in the computerisation of the method, or whether the language of the claim involves (to use the language employed in Rokt at [84]) “merely plugging an unpatentable scheme into a computer”[34].
[34] Ibid at [91]
However, the Full Court in Aristocrat 21 held this approach to be in error. The Full Court stated:
“The way in which his Honour formulated the first question did not involve any question of computer implementation. But the way in which his Honour framed the second question assumed that the scheme in question had been implemented in a computer. Framed in these terms, the question of whether the invention was in fact a computer-implemented invention was never asked and consequently was never answered.
In cases where the invention claimed is to a method which is to be implemented in something which is undoubtedly a computer his Honour’s approach is, with respect, entirely workable. RPL Central, Commissioner of Patents v Rokt Pte Ltd [2020] FCAFC 86; 277 FCR 267 (‘Rokt’) and Encompass Corporation Pty Ltd v InfoTrack Pty Ltd [2019] FCAFC 161; 372 ALR 646 (‘Encompass’) were all cases of this kind, that is to say, the question of computer implementation was a given and it made sense to proceed directly to the question of whether the invention in substance was a mere scheme implemented in a computer. The Court in these cases did not advert to the question of whether the invention was computer-implemented because it was plain that it was. However, isolating from those decisions the single question of whether what is involved is a scheme is apt to lead to error unless the question of computer implementation is kept in the analysis. In substance, this is the error which, in our respectful opinion, has been made in this case.
The following passage from RPL Central at [96] neatly illustrates this:
There must be more than an abstract idea; it [ie, the invention] must involve the creation of an artificial state of affairs where the computer is integral to the invention, rather than a mere tool in which the invention is performed. Where the claimed invention is to a computerised business method, the invention must lie in that computerisation. It is not a patentable invention simply to “put” a business method “into” a computer to implement the business method using the computer for its well-known and understood functions. (Emphasis added)
As the italicised phrase makes clear, the Court’s analysis proceeded from the fact that the invention involved the implementation of a method or scheme in a computer. In such cases where computer implementation is a given or has been established, posing as an initial question whether the invention in substance is in fact a mere scheme gives rise to few problems. Similarly, in cases where the claimed invention truly is for a mere scheme neither implemented in a computer nor for that matter in anything else (such as in Grant and Watson v Commissioner of Patents [2020] FCAFC 56; 150 IPR 207) his Honour’s approach also functions well for the same reason that no question of computer implementation arises.
However, in our respectful opinion, his Honour’s two step approach encounters problems where the claim includes a physical object which contains or may itself be a computer and where there is a question as to whether what is claimed is in substance a computer-implemented invention or something else. More generally, although his Honour’s two step approach is capable of operating successfully in the two circumstances we have mentioned, it is a problematic approach outside those two areas. This is because it has the potential to convert the overarching inquiry (‘is the invention patentable subject matter?’) into a single question (‘is the invention not a scheme?’). Such an approach may reduce the richness of analysis called for. This may include, for example, whether a claimed physical apparatus such as an EGM is, in truth, no more than a particular kind of computer.”[35]
[35] Aristocrat 21 at [21]–[25]
The Full Court also said:
“The primary judge’s two step approach to the manner of manufacture issue did not engage with the Commissioner’s submission that the invention as described and claimed was in substance a mere scheme or set of rules for playing a game implemented using generic computer technology for its well-known and well-understood functions. In particular, the primary judge’s two step approach does not adequately address the question of whether the EGM referred to in claim 1 is, or includes, a computer and whether the invention that is in substance described and claimed is a computer implemented scheme or set of rules governing the playing of a game. In my respectful opinion the primary judge’s two step approach was erroneous.”[36]
[36] Ibid at [135]
This approach is relevant for the present application. The question is, considering the specification as a whole, what is the substance of the invention? In the present case, as was noted in the first decision:
“The invention uses generic computing technology to execute a scheme … I note that it is the details of the scheme that are stressed in the description indicating that the locus of the ingenuity lies in the scheme for ordering the orders to be retrieved rather than in the system.”[37]
While the Deputy Commissioner then discussed the potential of the invention to achieve a practical and useful result, the conclusion applies. The substance of the invention is a scheme.
[37] First decision at [54] and [59]
The use of generic computer components is not a bar to patentability
I do not think it is disputed that the presence of generic computer components is, in and of itself, something that automatically leads to the conclusion that whatever is being defined in the claims must not be a manner of manufacture. If the mere presence of generic components was enough to render a claim unpatentable, then the decision of the Deputy Commissioner in Aristocrat 16 would have been different, since the gaming machine components defined in those claims are entirely generic in the gaming machine art. However, the presence of generic components in a claim tends to lend some weight to a conclusion that the substance of the invention is not technological. If the specification is agnostic as to precise implementation of a scheme in computer components, then the likelihood of those components forming part of the substance of the invention is lessened.
I must emphasise though that I am not being definitive here. There is clearly more to consider. In particular, whether there was, as noted in Research Affiliates:
“any part of the inventive step lies in the computer implementation”[38].
This is expanded upon in paragraph [96] of RPL Central quoted within the quote at paragraph [43] above.
[38] Research Affiliates at [118]
While the applicant did not agree that the claimed components were generic components, or that the arrangement of active ID devices and reader devices and their interaction could be considered generic computer functionality, the specification is notably silent as to specifics of these components. The specification is agnostic to what is actually used to implement the scheme. I do not agree with the applicant here.
Moreover, while the applicant referred to the timely location of a drug as being a technological problem that required a technological solution, that timely detection is entirely part of the scheme. The scheme requires the location of the drug to be known only when the drug is needed to be collected.
Furthermore, while the applicant submitted that the steps of notifying a user, and providing a map to retrieve the unused medication in a priority order, addressed a real and physical problem that produced a practical and useful result unrelated to a business problem or business rules, I disagree for similar reasons. This (entirely generically described) functionality is the business rule of collecting a medication when it is needed.
While noting the applicant’s reliance upon eBay, I must note the delegate states (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.”[39] (my emphasis)
[39] eBay at [42]
That is, the delegate in eBay did not see the substance of the invention as being a scheme. This is different to the present situation. To my mind, the present claims do “merely” define implementation features. The exemplified claim requires:
any type of active identification (ID) devices
any type of reader devices that is capable of receiving a signal from the active ID device when it is close by;
a memory (of any type); and
processors of any sort that can execute a program which:
receives information about package location, via any type of network;
determines the location of unused, discontinued medications;
determines the time and distance to retrieve the unused, discontinued medications and determine an order of retrieval; and
provides a list of medications to retrieve, and a map, to a (generic) remote mobile device.
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 computer-implemented scheme.
The ingenuity of the inventors lies in patentable subject matter
It follows from the above discussion, that I do not agree with the applicant that the ingenuity of the inventors lies in patentable subject matter.
Taking the problem being one of reducing the amount of unused, expired medication (as submitted by the applicant), the solution is a business scheme – collecting the unused medication and using it for other patients. The system devised to carry out the scheme, which, for the sake of argument, I will assume to be novel and not lack an inventive step, is one where generic components are configured to implement this scheme.
However, that is not an end to the matter. A claim to a computer-implemented scheme can still be patentable subject matter if there is ingenuity in the implementation. That is, that the claimed invention is more than just a scheme being “put into” a computer.
In the present case, I cannot see something more than “mere” implementation. The melange of components claimed logically follow when seeking to effect the implementation of the scheme. Mere use is being made of the well-known functions and abilities of the components concerned. Furthermore, the description of specific components in the specification (which is at a high level of abstraction) makes it clear that the implementation is completely within the level of skill of the person skilled in the art, with no apparent problems encountered that would require some modification of the components in any non-standard way. That is, the system is “merely the intermediary, configured to carry out the method”[40].
[40] RPL Central at [99]
The invention provides a practical and useful result arising from the inventors’ ingenuity
The applicant submitted that the claim required the steps of (i) receiving confirmation that the unused medication had been retrieved, and (ii) filling the new order using the retrieved unused medication. In this way the applicant submitted that the claimed invention ultimately achieved the result of “reduced wastage” referred to by the Deputy Commissioner in the first decision. As noted above (see paragraph [34]), the applicant was of the view that:
“… the steps taken by the system directly results in the unused medication being retrieved and the new order being filled by the unused medication.”
However, this is not the case. In this regard, while I note that the claim defines determining a sequence to retrieve unused medication, providing a map, receiving confirmation that the unused medication was retrieved and filling another medication order with the retrieved medication, this, as noted by the examiner, results in merely a potential for reduced wastage. The outcome is contingent on the system receiving a new order for a medication. If that does not occur, the benefit is not achieved. While the applicant considers this too-narrow a view, it is a view that arises from the words of the claim and the Deputy Commissioner’s decision. To use the applicant’s example of determining what materials and labour are required to build a house, and then applying that method to build the house, the claimed method first requires a step of receiving a request to build a house. Without such a request, a house is not built, and a “useful result” is not achieved.
Moreover, I am of the opinion that there is a distinction between the present application and those found in Bio-Rad 17, Bio-Rad 18 and Bio-Rad 19. In those cases, the methods claimed enabled the processes in question to operate using less material. However, in the present case, material has already been “used” in a sense. There is no improvement in the technical process for the preparation of the medication. Less material is not used in the preparation. Rather, the method is one of organising the logistics of preparation and supply, and feeding this into decisions around the preparations that are already available (i.e. “Do we throw this out or not?”).
As such, I do not agree that any physical phenomena associated the invention is guaranteed to manifest itself.
Conclusion
It follows from the above that I do not consider that the applicant’s amendments and submissions have altered the assessment of the substance of the invention. Consequently, it remains the case that the claimed invention, being, in substance, a scheme, is not directed to a manner of manufacture.
There is now the question of whether there is utility in further examination being carried out in the hope of finding patentable subject matter. I do not believe that there is utility. I do not see how the issue around the potential nature of any benefit is one that is able of being addressed by amendment.
I also cannot see any physical elements of the described computerised system that could provide ingenuity to the substance of the invention.
I refuse the application.
Greg Powell
Delegate of the Commissioner of Patents
Annex - Claims
1. A system for managing a retrieval of a prepared medication, the system comprising:
one or more active identification (ID) devices affixed to respective packages of one or more medications prepared for delivery, the active ID device configured to transmit signals containing identification information through a wireless link;
one or more reader devices configured to receive medication identification information via a signal generated and transmitted wirelessly from the active ID device when the active ID device is within a proximity of the one or more reader devices, without a scanning action performed by a participant;
a memory comprising instructions; and
one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to:
receive, via a network from a wireless bridge, identification information read from respective active identification devices affixed to respective packages of respective medications of a plurality of delivered medications as a result of the active identification devices passing within a proximity of the one or more reader devices, and the identification information being transmitted to the wireless bridge without a scanning action performed by a participant, the received identification information including a respective location within a healthcare facility of the respective medications;
determine, based on the received identification information, an identification of a plurality of unused medications that have been designated as discontinued before being administered to a patient, the plurality of unused medications including a first unused medication for a first patient that was delivered to the first patient’s location in the healthcare facility and is ready for retrieval from the first patient’s location, and a current location of each of the plurality of unused medications including an identification of each current location;
determine an order in which to retrieve the plurality of unused medications and return the plurality of unused medications to a return location based on an expiration date of at least one of the unused medications, an estimated amount of time to retrieve at least one of the unused medications, an estimated distance associated with retrieving at least one of the unused medications, and an estimated cost of at least one of the unused medications;
receive a new order for a medication;
determine that the new order can be filled with a respective unused medication of the plurality of unused medications; and
responsive to determining that the new order can be filled with the respective unused medication and that the respective unused medication is associated with a high priority value:
sort the order in which to retrieve the plurality of unused medications so that the respective unused medication is retrieved immediately; and
provide, to a mobile device remote from the system, for display by the mobile device, a listing of at least two of the plurality of unused medications based on the order for retrieving the at least two of the plurality of unused medications and an indication to immediately retrieve the respective unused medication, the listing including a graphical visualization of a route on a graphical map of the healthcare facility, the route indicating the order for retrieving the at least two of the plurality of unused medication from the respective current locations and returning the at least two of the plurality of unused medications to the return location, the visualization of the route being updated based on a current location of the mobile device;
receive confirmation that the respective unused medication was retrieved; and
fill the new order using the respective unused medication.
2. The system of any claim 1, wherein the order is determined based on an estimated amount of time to retrieve each of the plurality of unused medications and a degree of urgency associated with at least one of the plurality of unused medications.
3. The system of claim 2, wherein the one or more processors is further configured to execute the instructions to associate a priority value to each of the plurality of unused medications, wherein the priority value is based on at least one of the expiration date of each of the plurality of unused medications, the estimated amount of time to retrieve each of the plurality of unused medications, the degree of urgency associated with each of the plurality of unused medications, the cost associated with each of the plurality of unused medications, and the estimated distance to retrieve each of the plurality of unused medications.
4. The system of claim 3, wherein the order in which to retrieve at least two of the plurality of unused medications is determined according to respective priority values of each of the at least two of the plurality of unused medications.
5. The system of claim 2 or claim 3, wherein the listing is provided for display on a mobile device, and wherein the estimated distance to retrieve each of the at least two of the plurality of unused medications is determined based on a current location of the mobile device.
6. The system of any one of the preceding claims, wherein the order is determined based on at least one of a likelihood of reuse of each of the plurality of unused medications, or receipt of a new order for a medication that can be filled using at least one of the plurality of unused medications.
7. A method for managing a retrieval of a prepared medication, the method comprising:
providing one or more active identification (ID) devices affixed to respective packages of one or more medications prepared for delivery, the active ID device configured to transmit signals containing identification information through a wireless link;
configuring one or more reader devices to receive medication identification information via a signal generated and transmitted wirelessly from the active ID device when the active ID device is within a proximity of the one or more reader devices, without a scanning action performed by a participant;
receiving, by one or more computing devices, via a network from a wireless bridge, received identification information read from respective active identification devices affixed to respective medication packages of a plurality of delivered medications as a result of the active identification devices passing within a proximity of the one or more reader devices, and the identification information being transmitted to the wireless bridge without a scanning action performed by a participant, the received identification information including a respective location within a healthcare facility of the respective medications;
determining, by the one or more computing devices, based on the received identification information, an identification of a plurality of unused medications that have been designated as discontinued before being administered to a patient, the plurality of unused medications including a first unused medication for a first patient that was delivered to the first patient’s location in the healthcare facility and is ready for retrieval from the first patient’s location, and a current location of each of the plurality of unused medications including an identification of each current location;
determining, by the one or more computing devices, an order in which to retrieve the plurality of unused medications and return the plurality of unused medications to a return location based on an expiration date of at least one of the unused medications, an estimated amount of time to retrieve at least one of the unused medications, an estimated distance associated with retrieving at least one of the unused medications, and an estimated cost of at least one of the unused medications;
receiving a new order for a medication;
determining that the new order can be filled with a respective unused medication of the plurality of unused medications; and
responsive to determining that the new order can be filled with the respective unused medication and that the respective unused medication is associated with a high priority value:
sorting the order in which to retrieve the plurality of unused medications so that the respective unused medication is retrieved immediately; and
providing, by the one or more computing devices, to a mobile device remote from the one or more computing devices, for display by the mobile device, a listing of at least two of the plurality of unused medications based on the order for retrieving the at least two of the plurality of unused medications the listing including a graphical visualization of a route on a graphical map of the healthcare facility and an indication to immediately retrieve the respective unused medication, the route indicating the order for retrieving the at least two of the plurality of unused medication from the respective current locations and returning the at least two of the plurality of unused medications to the return location, the visualization of the route being updated based on a current location of the mobile device;
receiving confirmation that the respective unused medication was retrieved; and
filling the new order using the respective unused medication.
8. The method of claim 7, wherein the order is determined based on an estimated amount of time to retrieve each of the plurality of unused medications and a degree of urgency associated with at least one of the plurality of unused medications.
9. The method of claim 8, further comprising associating a priority value to each of the plurality of unused medications, wherein the priority value is based on at least one of the expiration date of each of the plurality of unused medications, the estimated amount of time to retrieve each of the plurality of unused medications, the degree of urgency associated with each of the plurality of unused medications, the cost associated with each of the plurality of unused medications, and the estimated distance to retrieve each of the plurality of unused medications.
10. The method of claim 9, wherein the order in which to retrieve the plurality of unused medications is determined according to respective priority values of each of the plurality of unused medications.
11. The method of any one of claims 7 to 10, wherein the listing is provided for display on a mobile device, and wherein the estimated distance to retrieve each of the plurality of unused medications is determined based on a current location of the mobile device.
12. The method of claim 7, wherein the order is determined based on at least one of a likelihood of reuse of each of the plurality of unused medications, or receipt of a new order for a medication that can be filled using at least one of the plurality of unused medications.
13. A machine-readable storage medium comprising machine-readable instructions for causing a processor to execute a method for managing a retrieval of a prepared medication, the method comprising:
configuring one or more reader devices to receive medication identification information via a signal generated and transmitted wirelessly from an active ID device affixed to a medication package when the medication package is within a proximity of the one or more reader devices, without a scanning action performed by a participant, wherein the active ID device is configured to transmit signals containing identification information through a wireless link;
receiving, via a network from a wireless bridge, received identification information read from respective active identification devices affixed to respective medication packages of a plurality of delivered medications as a result of the active identification devices passing within a proximity of the one or more reader devices, and the identification information being transmitted to the wireless bridge without a scanning action performed by a participant, the received identification information including a respective location within a healthcare facility of the respective medications;
determining, based on the received identification information, an identification of a plurality of unused medications that have been designated as discontinued before being administered to a patient, the plurality of unused medications including a first unused medication for a first patient that was delivered to the first patient’s location in the healthcare facility and is ready for retrieval from the first patient’s location, and a current location of each of the plurality of unused medications including an identification of each current location;
determining an order in which to retrieve the plurality of unused medications and return the plurality of unused medications to a return location based on an expiration date of at least one of the unused medications, an estimated amount of time to retrieve at least one of the unused medications, an estimated distance associated with retrieving at least one of the unused medications, and an estimated cost of at least one of the unused medications;
receiving a new order for a medication;
determining that the new order can be filled with a respective unused medication of the plurality of unused medications; and
responsive to determining that the new order can be filled with the respective unused medication and that the respective unused medication is associated with a high priority value:
sorting the order in which to retrieve the plurality of unused medications so that the respective unused medication is retrieved immediately; and
providing, to a mobile device remote from the processor, for display by the mobile device, a listing of at least two of the plurality of unused medications based on the order for retrieving the at least two of the plurality of unused medications; the listing including a graphical visualization of a route on a graphical map of the healthcare facility and an indication to immediately retrieve the respective unused medication, the route indicating the order for retrieving the at least two of the plurality of unused medication from the respective current locations and returning the at least two of the plurality of unused medications to the return location, the visualization of the route being updated based on a current location of the mobile device;
receiving confirmation that the respective unused medication was retrieved; and
filling the new order using the respective unused medication.
2
15
1