Invalidity dossier
US 166113
Improvement in nut-locks
Added 9/23/2026, 7:13:33 PM
Active provider: DeepSeek · deepseek-flash
Patent summary
Title, assignee, inventors, filing/issue dates, abstract, and a plain-language overview of the claims.
Patent Overview — US 166,113
Title: Improvement in Nut-Locks
Inventor: James M. Kent, of Curtis, Steuben County, New York
Patent date: July 27, 1875
Application filed: June 19, 1875
Assignee: None stated in the supplied text
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US166113](/patent/US166113)/en
Purpose
The invention addresses nut-locks—mechanisms to keep a nut from loosening on a bolt. Its stated aim is a lock that holds the nut rigidly in place, such that "removal or disengagement is impossible, (or nearly so, except by the destruction of the ring." The lock is designed to be removed deliberately by cutting the ring apart with a cold-chisel when desired.
Plain-language scope
The device combines several parts on a single bolt:
- Bolt A, formed with both right and left threads.
- Nut B, with teeth or serrations on one side and grooves on two sides. The grooves give access to each side of the ring so a cold-chisel can cut the ring into two pieces.
- Ring C, serrated to mesh with the teeth on nut B. When pressed against that nut, the bolt threads (per the text) hold it rigidly so it cannot be disengaged except by destroying it.
- Elastic washer c, on the bolt between ring C and nut D.
- Nut D, turned with an ordinary wrench, presses against the washer and thereby holds ring C and nut B closely together. Nut D connects to ring C via a quadrangular projection (marked G) on the nut's side, fitting a correspondingly quadrangular center in the ring.
Claim
A single claim: "The nut lock described, having double-threaded bolt A, ring 0 [C], washer c, and nuts B and D, the latter of which is provided with grooves 3 for the purpose specified."
What the excerpt does not establish
It does not identify an assignee or any ownership transfer; it does not establish litigation, validity, or the content or dates of prior art beyond the classification and citation listings shown; and it does not provide dimensional, material, or manufacturing specifics. Note also internal inconsistencies in the OCR (grooves referenced as "1" and "3"; ring letter "0" vs. "C"), which the excerpt does not resolve.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:42:17 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 166113. The free-form analysis below may also discuss cases beyond this list.
No cases on file mention this patent. Upload a CSV or add a case manually in Admin → Manage litigation cases.
Litigation summary
Past and pending lawsuits — plaintiffs, defendants, jurisdictions, outcomes, and notable rulings.
Proceedings on file (0)
All PTAB activity →AIA trial proceedings (IPR / PGR / CBM) filed at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board against this patent. Sourced from the USPTO Open Data Portal and refreshed every six hours; each proceeding number deep-links to the PTAB E2E docket.
No PTAB proceedings on file. This patent has not been challenged via IPR, PGR, or CBM. The absence is itself a signal — well-asserted patents eventually attract IPRs. The LLM analysis below may surface filings the ODP feed hasn’t indexed yet.
PTAB challenges
AIA trial proceedings at the USPTO Patent Trial and Appeal Board — IPR, PGR, and CBM. Petitioners, judge panels, claim-level invalidation outcomes from Final Written Decisions, and Federal Circuit appeals. The single most important defensive datapoint after litigation history.
Assignment history
Inventors, original assignee, and the chain of ownership recorded with the USPTO — including the correspondent attorney who recorded each assignment, since shell-LLC chains often share one repeat-player attorney even when the entity names look unrelated. Surfaces NPE / patent-troll patterns: shell-entity transfers, known asserters in the chain, repeat correspondent fingerprints, pre-litigation assignments, and bankruptcy fire-sales.
Prior art
Earlier patents, publications, and products that may anticipate or render the claims unpatentable.
Obviousness
Combinations of prior art that suggest the claimed invention would have been obvious under 35 U.S.C. § 103.
Extensions
Patent term adjustments, term extensions, continuations, divisionals, family members, and expiration dates.
Derivative works
Defensive disclosure: derivative variations of each claim designed to render future incremental improvements obvious or non-novel.