Invalidity dossier
US 1131951
Apparatus for ejecting ashes.
Current assignee: Stone J and Co Ltd
Added 9/23/2026, 7:31:36 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 1,131,951
Title: Apparatus for ejecting ashes.
Patent number: US 1,131,951 A
Inventor: William Steel Parsons
Assignee: Stone J and Co Ltd (original assignee; also listed as J Stone and Co Ltd)
Dates: Priority/filing date 1911-08-04; publication/grant date 1915-03-16. Status: expired (anticipated expiration 1932-03-16).
Purpose: The patent concerns improvements in apparatus for discharging or ejecting ashes, clinkers, or other refuse from ships. Material is deposited in a hopper and admitted into a water circulatory system comprising a discharge pipe, where a stream of water carries the ashes away.
Plain-language scope (from the supplied text): A pump delivers water through a contracted nozzle into a space below the hopper; a flared or reversely coned delivery pipe cooperates with the nozzle so ashes are drawn into the discharge pipe by the water stream. In one form (Fig. 1), ashes are taken up exteriorly by the jet; in another (Fig. 2), they pass into the center of the stream to reduce wear on the conical nozzles. Crushing rollers in the hopper are chain-driven from a countershaft. A hydraulic governor on the pump casing actuates a steam-pipe valve. Piston-and-cylinder means energized by pressure changes in the discharge pipe automatically control the hopper valve and water supply; suction at a recess in the expanding nozzle opens the valve, with a plunger acting against a head of water as constantly operative closing means. A sparge pipe rinses the hopper valve and seat, and scrapers on the piston rod clear ashes before the valve closes. The apparatus may fit between the stokehole floor and inner skin of a ship's double bottom.
Source: https://patents.google.com/patent/US1131951/en
What the excerpt does not establish: The supplied text is excerpted (claims are truncated) and omits full claim language, the complete description, and drawing details. It provides no independent verification of assignee accuracy, priority, or legal status, and no litigation, ownership-transfer, validity, or prior-art analysis is included.
Generated 10/1/2026, 9:41:58 PM
Cases on file (0)
Specific litigation cases in our database that name US patent 1131951. 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.