Judging whether an item meeting an item condition had been retrieved from an RFID-based cabinet: non-technical

The application underlying the discussed decision concerns a storage cabinet that manages stored items using RFID technology and automatically checks whether items meeting a specified retrieval condition have been correctly removed. The key feature at issue was the controller’s function of judging whether an item meeting an item condition had been retrieved from the cabinet after a user opened and closed the door. The Board considered this feature to be a non-technical administrative requirement that could not contribute to inventive step.

Here are the practical takeaways from the decision: T 1189/23 (Storage cabinet/SATO) of 24 October 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Key takeaways

Automatically checking whether items meeting a specified retrieval condition have been removed from an RFID-based storage cabinet is a non-technical administrative requirement under the COMVIK approach. The cognitive content of the data checked and any deduction or judgement derived from it (i.e., whether certain items have been removed or not) are part of a non-technical scheme, and their straightforward implementation on a known system cannot support inventive step.

The invention

The Board of Appeal summarized the invention as follows:

The invention concerns a storage cabinet that stores a plurality of items, each tagged with an RFID tag recording item information such as item codes, expiry dates, and lot numbers. The cabinet comprises a housing with a door and two RFID readers. A first reader reads all item tags inside the cabinet when the door is in a closed state, and the read item information is stored in a memory. A second reader is positioned on the outside of the housing and reads a second recording medium, such as a picking list card, when it is brought proximate to a predetermined area on the housing while the door is closed. The second recording medium contains information relating to an item condition specifying which items should be retrieved from the cabinet. When an operator presents the picking list card to the external reader, the controller identifies matching items in the stored inventory. After the operator opens and closes the door, i.e. after completing a retrieval transaction, the first reader scans all remaining items. The controller then determines a judgment result as to whether items meeting the item condition have been successfully retrieved by checking whether the identified items are still present. The system may output alarms or display messages to inform the operator of the result.

Main request, Claim 1

1. A storage cabinet (1) for storing a plurality of items (IM1 to IM6), each item including a first recording medium attached thereto, the first recording medium being an RF tag for recording item information relating to a corresponding item, the storage cabinet (1) comprising:

a housing (2) for storing the plurality of items,

a door (3) connected to the housing (2), the door (3) being in an open state in which the plurality of items is accessible from the outside, or in a closed state in which the plurality of items is inaccessible from the outside;

a first reader (21) configured to read item information recorded in the first recording media of all items stored in the housing (2), when the door (3) is in the closed state;

a second reader (21) configured to read information recorded in a second recording medium, when the door (3) is in the closed state, and the second recording medium is made proximate from the outside to or comes into contact with a predetermined area (10) on the housing (2), the information recorded in the second recording medium including information relating to an item condition of an item to be retrieved from the storage cabinet (1);

a memory (23) configured to record the item information read by the first reader (21); and

a first controller (20),

characterized in that

the first controller (20) is configured to: when the information relating to an item condition of an item to be retrieved from the storage cabinet (1) is read by the second reader (21), identify item information that meets the item condition among the item information recorded in the memory (23);

judge whether the identified item information is included in the item information read by the first reader (21) in response to a change of a state of the door (3) back from the open state to the closed state after the state of the door (3) had changed from the closed state to the open state; and

determine a judgment result as to whether an item that meets the item condition of an item to be retrieved from the storage cabinet (1) has been retrieved therefrom.

Is it patentable?

The Examining Division’s position

The examining division considered that the technical features of claim 1, as defined in the preamble, were all known from D1 (US 2014/138440 A1), which disclosed an RFID-based storage cabinet with a housing, a door, two RFID readers (including an external scanner), a computer system (controller), and a memory storing inventory data. The examining division found that claim 1 was distinguished from D1 only by the last feature of the characterizing portion, namely the determination of “a judgment result as to whether an item that meets the item condition of an item to be retrieved from the storage cabinet has been retrieved therefrom.” The examining division considered this feature to define a non-technical business requirement. D1 already maintained an accurate inventory, and scanning by its RFID scanners enabled storing transactions and checking them against the inventory database. The setting of a goal or condition by the user and the corresponding scan were used for inventory purposes, which required accessing and checking the database data. The examining division took the view that performing such checks was based on non-technical inventory policy rules, which could not confer a technical effect, and concluded that the subject-matter of claim 1 lacked inventive step over D1.

The Appellant’s arguments

The appellant argued that D1’s external scanner could read information on an item, but this information did not concern an item condition of an item to be retrieved, and the operation did not trigger any identification of respective item information in the memory. D1 did not show any correlation between information about a particular item to be retrieved, read by an external reader, and the current database entries about items in the cabinet. In fact, D1 did not check whether a particular item desired to be retrieved was actually retrieved. D1’s scan of all items was not for making any judgement but only for updating the database. The appellant argued that the aim of the invention was to perform an automatic check as to whether a task for removing particular products meeting a certain retrieval condition had been correctly performed, so that an operator could immediately recognise the results without any manual check. This enhanced security by ensuring the correct retrieval of items from the storage cabinet. The objective technical problem, when starting from D1, was therefore how to provide a storage cabinet capable of enhancing security by ensuring correct retrieval. D1 could not solve this problem because it lacked a check of the inventory database after the door was closed to determine whether any item meeting the retrieval condition had been left inside.

The Board’s analysis

Main request

The Board agreed with the examining division that the technical features of claim 1, as defined in the preamble, were known from D1. The appellant also conceded this point. The Board then assessed the features of the characterizing portion and reached the following conclusions:

The characterizing features aimed to check whether all items meeting a certain retrieval condition had been retrieved. The Board agreed with the examining division that this was a direct implementation of a non-technical requirement.
The Board could not recognise any “enhanced security” because claim 1 determined only a “judgment result” without any further technical step that could ensure the correct retrieval of items from the storage cabinet. The claimed system did not prevent a user from retrieving a wrong item.
In line with the COMVIK approach (T 641/00), features which do not solve a technical problem by providing a technical effect cannot contribute to inventive step. Determining whether an item meeting an unspecified condition has been retrieved from the cabinet is a non-technical requirement. The cognitive content of the data checked and any deduction or judgement derived from it are part of a non-technical scheme.
The objective technical problem was formulated as how to automate this non-technical scheme in the system of D1. It would be obvious for the person skilled in the art to configure the computer system of D1 to perform the operations defined in the characterizing portion of claim 1.
Regarding the appellant’s argument that D1 was only concerned with inventory management, the Board noted that D1 also mentioned maintaining an accurate inventory and using the database for checks when transactions were performed. D1’s external reader was used for quality assurance checks and for scanning patient wristbands, and its goal-selection mechanism implicitly taught a check as to whether the user had retrieved the correct item.

Auxiliary requests

Auxiliary request 1 amended the judgment to check whether “all items” meeting the condition had been retrieved. The Board found this to be just a different administrative requirement belonging to the non-technical domain, obvious to implement. D1 clearly mentioned that a goal may require several transactions.
Auxiliary request 2 added an alarm output if the item had not been retrieved. The Board held that this merely presented the result of a non-technical judgement. D1 already disclosed the ability to output alerts to a user, and it would be obvious to assist the user by outputting an alarm indicating incomplete retrieval.
Auxiliary request 3 added a display and/or voice output of the judgment result. The Board found this to be an obvious and straightforward measure, noting that D1 disclosed a display for presenting output and D7 taught voice output.

Conclusion

The Board dismissed the appeal in its entirety. For all requests, the Board found that the distinguishing features over D1 defined non-technical administrative requirements relating to checking whether items meeting a retrieval condition had been removed from the storage cabinet. Under the COMVIK approach, these non-technical requirements were given to the skilled person as part of the problem formulation, and their implementation on the known RFID-based storage cabinet system of D1 was found to be obvious. The application was thus refused for lack of inventive step under Article 56 EPC.

More information

You can read the full decision here: T 1189/23 (Storage cabinet/SATO) of 24 October 2025, of the Technical Board of Appeal 3.5.01.

Stay in the loop

Never miss a beat by subscribing to the email newsletter. Please see our Privacy Policy.

Privacy policy Yes, I consent to the collection, processing and use of my above-mentioned personal data for the purposes of processing my message and for the purposes of contacting me via email. The legal basis of the processing shall be formed by my consent pursuant to Art. 6 (1) lit. a GDPR. The data will be deleted three months after expiry of the purpose, provided that longer retention periods are not required by law. I can revoke this consent with future effect at any time. I have taken note of the privacy statement and consent to it. With regard to the processing of my data, I am entitled to inalienable rights, information on which can be found in the privacy statement.

* = Required field