Invalidity dossier
US 174931
Improvement in sectional steam-boilers
Added 9/23/2026, 9:11:28 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 — US174931A
Title: Improvement in Sectional Steam-Boilers
Inventor: Valerius D. Anderson, of Springfield, Ohio
Patent number: US 174,931
Dates: Application filed March 6, 1875; patent dated/issued March 21, 1876. (Google Patents lists a prior-art date of 1876-03-21 and an anticipated expiration of 1893-03-21.) Sources: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US174931](/patent/US174931)/en
Purpose: To provide "a very simple and cheap method of constructing boilers," and to allow boilers to be increased or reduced in size for various uses. The specification also aims at economical fuel use and at safe, strong construction suited to farmers, domestic use, shops, and factories.
Plain-language scope (from the three claims):
- A boiler section made of cast-iron manifolds (heads A and B B), each cast complete in one piece, joined by wrought-iron tubes with a right-hand thread on one end and a left-hand thread on the other.
- A boiler formed of a series of such sections, united by connecting-thimbles (the short tubes I).
- In combination with a boiler having horizontal tubes, a set of internal plates (e, l, n', and u) arranged to route combustion products laterally and vertically, forward and back, up and down.
Disclosed features: Lower tubes incline upward front-to-rear while the upper tier inclines oppositely, to promote water circulation and steam escape. Sections screw together without flanges, bolts, rivets, or tie-rods; boilers ship in pieces and can pass through doors. A curved plate in the upper manifold resists water carryover into the steam drum; a mud-drum connects to the lower manifolds; brick setting and a bridge-wall with directing plates are described for larger units.
Not established by the excerpt: No assignee is identified in the supplied text; no attorney, examiner, or witness details beyond two witnesses (H. S. Showers, D. L. Craft); no drawings are legible; no legal-status conclusion, litigation, ownership transfer, validity, or prior-art analysis is established here. Numerical inconsistencies in the OCR (e.g., "1745931") are not resolved.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:40:54 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 174931. 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.