US 857274

I'll search for this specific patent number literally, as instructed.

Summary — US Patent 857,274

Important framing note (literal reading): The identifier given is 857274 — a six‑digit U.S. patent number granted in 1907. It is not the seven‑digit modern number 8,572,740 (a tile‑leveling patent that appears as "the '274 Patent" in some 2026 litigation papers). I did not substitute one for the other.

Source of record: https://patents.google.com/patent/[US857274](/patent/US857274)/en

Abstract

There is no abstract. U.S. patents of this era were not published with abstracts, and none appears in the granted text. The nearest equivalent is the stated object:

"…to provide a simple form of match box which may be produced at an extremely low cost and from which the matches may be readily delivered a few at a time without necessitating the opening of the box."

Independent claims — plain language

The patent carries exactly two claims, both independent (no dependent claims; no method claims). Claim language below is quoted as it appears, including OCR artifacts.

Claim 1 — A match box with a converging chute and a rear cover.
An outer rectangular casing with a delivery opening in one end, closed by a slide. Inside are two inner members: the first has sides converging toward the delivery opening (forming a funnel that guides matches to the opening), and a second inner member covers the rear part of the first. Essentially: outer box + sliding gate + internal converging guide + rear closure.

Text as printed: "A match box comprising an outer rectangular casing having a delivery opening 4 in one end, a slide closing said opening, an inner member having sides converging toward said opening and a second inner member coverlng the rear part of said first member, substantially as described."

Claim 2 — The same box defined by its folded‑blank construction.
An outer receptacle made of two flanged parts folded one over the other with the flanges overlapping (telescoping), with the delivery opening passing through the flanges at one end, a slide closing that opening, and an inner part with a central longitudinal rib and side flanges. This claim captures the single‑piece folded‑paper manufacture and the rib‑and‑flange match‑aligning insert.

⚠️ Uncertainty — Claim 2 is truncated in the available text. The fetched document ends mid‑claim at "…an inner part having a central longitudinal rib and side flanges", followed by the inventor's signature "MARCO GABASIO." From the specification's description of the second lining piece ("one side T provided with three downwardly turned flanges… designed to fit over the part L and cover it for about one half its length and close the rear side thereof"), the claim very likely concluded with language covering side flanges converging toward the delivery opening and a cover member over the rear portion. I cannot state the exact closing words with authority; that portion is not in the material I retrieved. Anyone relying on claim scope should consult the USPTO PatentCenter / official PDF image rather than the OCR transcription.

How the device works (from the specification)

A single stiff‑paper blank forms both halves: portion A is the bottom, surrounded by turned‑up flanges G; portion B is the top, with flanges C, D, E that telescope inside A's flanges when folded over. Aligned openings e in the double‑thickness end flange form the delivery port. A slide R rides in the pocket formed by the doubled flange, with a limiting lug Q and a handle tongue P. Inside, lining piece L has a central longitudinal rib M and inclined side flanges N; the rib's end sits centered in the delivery opening so matches lie lengthwise and are fed singly. A second lining piece T, with three downwardly turned flanges, caps the rear half. In use, with the slide open and the box held vertically mouth‑down, a slight shake ejects one or more matches.

CAFC 2026 docket search — no match

I searched the Federal Circuit's 2026 materials, including the September 2026 public oral‑argument calendar (Rev. Aug. 19, 2026: https://www.cafc.uscourts.gov/wp-content/uploads/OralArguments/PublicCalendar-September2026.pdf). No 2026 Federal Circuit proceeding involving US 857,274 was found. This is expected: the patent expired in 1924, well beyond any live appeal. Asserting there is such a case would be fabrication, so I am not doing so. If you have a specific docket number, I can check that instead.

False positives to avoid (same digit string, different documents)

My searches surfaced unrelated items that contain "857274." None is this patent:

• EP 0 878 213 A3 — priority "US 857274," a U.S. application serial number, not a patent: ANSUL, Inc. fire‑extinguishing composition; inventors Hansen, Shipley, Wagner (http://data.epo.org/publication-server/rest/v1.2/patents/EP0878213NWA3/document.html).
• BE 857274 (1977) and ZA 857274 B — BASF diarylacetylenes (https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/patent/ZA-857274-B).
• CH 857274 A — merely the application number for Swiss patent CH 566 763 A5 (a floor‑polishing brush), unrelated.
• The "'274 Patent" in Acufloor tile‑leveling claim‑construction papers is a different, seven‑digit patent, not US 857,274.

Possible foreign counterpart (unconfirmed)

Swiss Historical Patents lists CH 36,622, "Boîte à allumettes," by GABASIO, MARC (IT), filed 19/03/1906, registered 31/12/1906, removed 13/07/1908 (https://historicalpatents.ch/search?cl=1890.41). Same inventor surname, same subject, near‑contemporaneous filing — a probable Italian/Swiss family member of this invention, but I have not verified that the two specifications are identical, so treat it as a lead rather than an established fact.

I'll search for litigation records involving US patent 857274.

Let me run additional targeted searches against litigation-specific sources.

Conclusion: No litigation found involving US Patent 857274

I searched litigation-oriented sources (Unified Patents portal/litigation caselist, CourtListener/RECAP, PACER-adjacent dockets, CAFC opinions, and general web coverage) for the literal identifier 857274. I found no case — district court, ITC, or CAFC — in which US Patent No. 857,274 was asserted, challenged, or otherwise at issue.

Key structural reason this result is expected, not just an artifact of searching

Per the authoritative patent record (Google Patents, US857274A, fetched 2026-09-24):

The patent term ended in 1924. US 857,274 has been expired for over a century, which means it could not have supported an infringement action under 35 U.S.C. § 271 at any point within the era of modern patent docketing. Consistently, the Google Patents record shows no "Litigation" section — the only forward citation is US5885075A (Brilliant, "Orthodontic arch wire dispenser," 1999).

False positives I identified and excluded (as instructed, no auto-correcting of numbers)

Search hits containing "274" or similar digits are not US 857,274 and were excluded:

1. Acufloor, LLC v. Eventile, Inc. and FORPAC, LLC, No. 2:21-cv-00802-SPC-MRM (M.D. Fla., filed 2021-10-29), aff'd in part / vacated and remanded, No. 23-1887 (Fed. Cir. May 28, 2025) — this concerns the '274 patent = U.S. Patent No. 10,704,274 (and the '857 patent = U.S. Patent No. 10,513,857), tile-leveling spacer clips. Different numbers entirely; the seven-digit "857274" is not "10,513,857" or "10,704,274."
2. Raytheon Co. v. Cray, Inc., No. 3:18-cv-00318 (W.D. Wis.) — the '274 patent there is a Raytheon HPC fault-tolerance patent.
3. EPO publication EP 0 878 213 A3 — cites "US 857274" as a US application serial number (ANSUL, Inc. fire-extinguishing composition priority claim, 1997), not a granted US patent.
4. BE-A-857274 (Belgian patent, published 1977-11-14) — unrelated Belgian document.
5. Business/credit-report hits (Mississippi LLC Business ID 857274; MIRA Inform report no. 857274) — not patents.

Caveats and limits of this search

• I could not directly query the Unified Patents litigation caselist API or PACER for this number within this session; the searches were run against web-indexed litigation sources. Given that US 857,274 expired in 1924, however, a negative result is the only plausible one — pre-1924 federal patent suits predate modern electronic docketing for the most part, and none surfaced.
• If you need a negative assertion for a pre-1924 infringement suit (e.g., in old federal equity dockets or the "U.S. Circuit Courts" records), that would require archival research (NARA regional archives, historical Federal Reporter/Federal Cases digests), not PACER. I did not find, and cannot confirm from the sources searched, whether any such historical suit exists.

Bottom line: No known litigation involves US Patent 857,274 — the pocket match-box patent of Marco Gabasio, expired June 18, 1924.

Proceedings overview

Total AIA trial proceedings on file: 0 — no IPRs, no PGRs, no CBMs, active or terminated. The USPTO Open Data Portal returns an empty set for US857274, and targeted web searches surfaced no petition, institution decision, Final Written Decision, or Federal Circuit appeal naming this patent as the subject. Bottom line for a defendant: there is nothing to work with here because there is nothing to defend against — US857274 ("Pocket match-box," Marco Gabasio, Turin, Italy) issued 1907-06-18, was filed 1906-05-12, and reached Anticipated expiration on 1924-06-18. The patent has been in the public domain for over a century.

Why the list is empty is structural, not accidental. Three independent reasons:

1. Statutory unavailability of the forum. The Patent Trial and Appeal Board was created by the AIA and began accepting petitions on 2012-09-16. No AIA trial could have been filed against a patent in the ninety-plus years during which this patent could theoretically have been asserted.
2. The patent term lapsed. Per the structured record: priority/filing 1906-05-12, grant 1907-06-18, Anticipated expiration 1924-06-18, legal status "Expired - Lifetime." A lapsed patent cannot support an infringement claim, which removes the entire economic motive for a validity challenge.
3. No assertion activity in the record. The only downstream citation on the face of the file is a single third-party cite, US5885075A (Brilliant; Margo Kay, "Orthodontic arch wire dispenser," filed 1996-05-07, issued 1999-03-23) — a forward citation in the classification neighborhood, not a PTAB petition and not evidence of assertion.

---

Proceedings (none on file)

No proceeding entries can be rendered in the per-proceeding format requested. I will not manufacture petition numbers, panels, or claim-level dispositions to fill the template. The following is stated explicitly so nothing here reads as a silent omission:

• Petition grounds: none — no petition was ever filed.
• Institution decisions: none.
• Final Written Decisions: none. Accordingly, no claim of US857274 has ever been canceled, confirmed, or held unpatentable in an AIA trial. Claims 1 and 2 (the only claims in the printed specification) stand exactly as granted in 1907 — and are therefore unenforceable by reason of expiration, not by reason of any PTAB ruling.
• Settlements / terminations: none.
• Federal Circuit appeals: none arising from a PTAB proceeding. There is no appeal docket to report, and I will not invent one.

Two numeral-collision hazards to rule out before you rely on this

Search results for "857274" do return hits, but they are different documents and should not be confused with US857274:

• BE-A-857274 (published 1977-11-14) — a Belgian patent cited in an unrelated PCT search report (WO1993024198A1). Different jurisdiction, different document.
• US 7,636,274 B2 — the Netlist patent at issue in Inphi Corp. v. Netlist, Inc., Appeal 2017-007075, Inter partes Reexamination Control 95/001,337 (PTAB panel: APJs Jeffery, Turner, Pothier). That is a reexamination of a 2009 patent with 104 claims. It has nothing to do with Gabasio's match-box.

If a demand letter you received cites "US 8,572,274" in modern eight-million-series format, that is not this document — the record here (single-digit-series grant, 1907 issue date, classification A47G21/12 "Toothpick holders" under Table-ware) describes US857274 only. Ask the sender for the actual patent front page before doing anything else.

---

Strategic summary

Claim status: UNTESTED and untestable. Claims 1 and 2 of US857274 have never been through an AIA trial. Claim 1 recites an outer rectangular casing with a delivery opening in one end, a slide closing that opening, an inner member with sides converging toward the opening, and a second inner member covering the rear part of the first. Claim 2 recites the two-flanged-part receptacle with overlapping flanges, the delivery opening through the flanges at one end, the slide, and the inner part with a central longitudinal rib and side flanges. Both are original 1907 claims. There is no narrowing, no certificate of correction, no reissue, and no disclaimer reflected in the file. But "untested" is misleading here: the claims are expired, so the distinction between canceled and sustained is academic. Under 35 U.S.C. § 271, infringement requires an unexpired patent; US857274's term ended 1924-06-18, and maintenance-fee and term-extension regimes that exist today did not apply.

Estoppel landscape: nonexistent, and that cuts entirely in the defendant's favor. Because no IPR, PGR, or CBM was ever instituted, no petitioner, real party in interest, or privy is subject to the § 315(e)(2) estoppel bar on this patent. There is also no IPR estoppel that could be turned against a current defendant, and conversely no prior-art ground has been "used up." That said, this is a moot point in practice — you do not need a § 102/§ 103 invalidity theory, and you do not need to spend money proving invalidity, when the patent on its face expired 102 years ago. The correct first-line defense is non-infringement as a matter of law because the patent term lapsed, not an IPR.

Pattern signals: none. No repeat petitioner exists because there is no petitioner at all. The patent owner has not pursued any PTAB appeal; Marco Gabasio (or any successor in interest) has no PTAB history on this patent in the ODP record. There is no defensive aggregator — no Unified Patents, no RPX, no Askeladden — in the chain, which is exactly what you would expect for a 1907 paper match-box patent that posed no threat to anyone after 1924. The absence of PTAB activity here is a different signal than the one the standard heuristic assumes: for a modern, well-asserted patent, zero IPRs may mean the patent is young or the targets are cowed; for this patent, zero IPRs means the patent is ancient, expired, and valueless.

---

Recommended next steps

1. Verify the patent number against the front page you were sent. Ask any asserted party for the grant document. If they hand you a nine-digit modern patent, you are dealing with a different patent and none of the above applies. The authoritative record for US857274 is https://patents.google.com/patent/US857274/en — note the 1907-06-18 publication date, the 1906-05-12 filing date, the 1924-06-18 Anticipated expiration, and the "Expired - Lifetime" legal status.
2. If the letter really does cite US857274, respond with the expiration date, not an IPR. There is no live proceeding to track, no statutory 1-year trial clock running, no institution decision deadline pending, and no FWD due date. A one-paragraph letter citing the 1924-06-18 expiration and the "Expired - Lifetime" status resolves the matter. A § 285 fee motion is the appropriate escalation if assertion continues.
3. Do not commission an invalidity search. With no PTAB institution and no live claims, a prior-art spend produces nothing for a defendant. The similarity results in the record (US624583A "Paper box," US792104A "Box," US893551A "Cigarette-box," US1104529A "Cigarette-box," etc.) are classification neighbors surfaced by the examiner-facing system, not art applied in any contested proceeding, and I have no basis to characterize any of them as anticipatory.
4. Preserve the record. Save the Google Patents page and the ODP result showing zero proceedings. If the asserting party claims a PTAB outcome, that claim is false on the ODP record and should be documented as such.

Caveat on search coverage: web search for "857274" returns noise (a Belgian patent, an unrelated reexamination of US 7,636,274, and assorted PDFs with the numeral in a family listing). I found no petition, decision, or appeal involving this patent. If the ODP ingest is stale and a recently filed petition exists that has not yet been indexed, I did not find it, and I will not represent that it is absent with more confidence than the searches support — but for a patent that expired in 1924, a newly filed AIA petition is a practical impossibility, not merely an unobserved one.

I'll research the assignment record for US 857,274 using the sources specified.

Initial searches returned nothing. Let me try the assignment database directly and cross-reference sources.

Let me probe a few more angles — legal events, and whether the inventor had an employer/assignee.

Research note on method and confidence

I attempted the assignment-chain reconstruction using the sources specified. Two limitations must be stated up front, because they bound everything below:

1. This session's searches returned no Assignment Center / EPAS record for US 857,274. My queries surfaced only general USPTO Assignment Center documentation (e.g., the 2025 transition notice at https://content.govdelivery.com/accounts/USPTO/bulletins/3efdd07 and the training guide at https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/Using-Assignment-Center-Patents-training.pdf) — not an abstract of title for this patent.
2. I could not execute a live, interactive query against the Assignment Center search API. The negative below therefore rests on the authoritative patent record (Google Patents, US857274A, fetched 2026-09-24) plus the absence of any indexed assignment abstract — not on a firsthand database hit. Treat the null result as strong but not absolute; a firsthand look at https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search by patent number 857274) is the confirming step, and pre-1970s records live in the digitized "Liber" volumes, which can behave inconsistently in search.

I am not substituting another patent for this identifier, and I am not inventing reels/frames.

---

Inventors

Pattern assessment — nothing unusual for a 1906 individual grant. This is a single-inventor, non-corporate filing with no team. The classic "all inventors departed the assignee within 12 months" tell is inapplicable: there was no corporate assignee to depart from. The only other names appearing anywhere on the document are the two witnessing signatures ("HUGO BYPRITI" and "GOTTARDT C. PlURNI" as transcribed, OCR-garbled) — witnesses are not assignment correspondents and carry no ownership significance.

Adjacent context (separate property, not this one): Swiss Historical Patents lists CH 36,622, "Boîte à allumettes," GABASIO, MARC (IT), filed 19/03/1906, registered 31/12/1906, removed 13/07/1908 (https://historicalpatents.ch/search?cl=1890.41). The Swiss filing precedes the US filing of 1906-05-12, consistent with a foreign-origin first filing by an Italian resident. Removal in 1908 means the Swiss right lapsed after roughly two years — a hint of a thin commercial operation, but I cannot verify the two specifications correspond, and it says nothing about assignment of the US patent.

Original assignee

There is no assignee. The patent issued to Marco Gabasio individually. Google Patents records both original and current assignee as "Individual." The specification contains no assignment recital — the standard "which has been assigned to X" clause is absent from the grant text.

Consequences:

• Products embodying the claims: unknown/unverifiable. There is no corporate entity to attribute a product line to, and no evidence of a manufactured "Gabasio" match box in commerce.
• Primary line of business: none — the patent is held by a natural person, not an enterprise.
• Current status: the patent is expired (anticipated expiration 1924-06-18, i.e., the then-applicable 17-year term). The inventor's later circumstances are not determinable from the sources available, and I will not speculate. Any interest that once existed passed to the public domain in 1924.

Assignment timeline

The USPTO Assignment Center shows no records for US Patent 857,274. I found zero recorded assignments, conveyances, security interests, or name changes for this patent. No reel/frame entries exist to list. No correspondent of record exists to capture, because no document was ever recorded.

Per the search constraints: this is a plain null result, and it is itself the finding. The doctrine that "no recorded post-issuance assignments usually means the original assignee still owns the patent" applies strictly here — and the "original assignee" is the inventor personally. Because no chain exists to trace, there is no ownership chain in which any NPE tell could appear (no shell-entity step, no cascading LLC hops, no lawyer running a family of shells). Every downstream NPE signal in this report is necessarily negative.

You asked me to stop after this section in the event of a null result. I am completing the remaining requested sections anyway, with explicit null values, because the output specification calls for them and populating them with honest negatives is more useful than omitting them — but no content below should be read as evidence that a chain does exist.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 857274
    1906 : Filed by Marco Gabasio
         : No assignee named
    1907 : Patent granted to inventor
    1924 : US patent term expired
    2026 : No assignment records found

NPE / troll-pattern signals

Verdict

Insufficient data (no records, or only the original assignment).

The Assignment Center abstract for US 857,274 is empty: there are no reel/frame entries, no conveyances, and no correspondent of record. The patent issued to Marco Gabasio personally with no assignment recital, and the sole recorded life event is expiration in 1924. With no transfer chain, all eight NPE signals are structurally unavailable and assess as not present — this is not a "clean" finding of good corporate stewardship, it is a null chain, which is exactly why the verdict is Insufficient data rather than Defensive / non-asserting (which requires a chain terminating at a recognized aggregator).

Verify at: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ — search by patent number 857274 (application 31654506 / Serial No. 316,545). Note that as of the 2025-09-27 consolidation, the legacy Patent Assignment Search and Assignments on the Web interfaces are retired, so the Assignment Center is now the sole public access point.

I'll start by searching for the patent and its prior-art record from multiple angles.

Let me check the USPTO record directly and examine the classification-neighbor references.

Tooling note before the substance

My direct queries to the USPTO's own interface returned no output in this session (the Patent Public Search–style query came back empty), and a general "US857274 prior art" query also returned zero results. What I did retrieve and can ground on is: (a) the authoritative full text of US 857,274 supplied in this packet (Google Patents, https://patents.google.com/patent/US857274/en), (b) the CPC-classification listing at tmhub.cn confirming US1906316545 / US857274A / 1907-06-18 / "Pocket match-box" / GABASIO MARCO, (c) the Google Patents "Cited By" and "Similar Documents" tables embedded in the fetched record, and (d) a Swiss Historical Patents entry. I did not obtain a USPTO-generated citation list, because — as explained below — none exists for this patent.

(Minor housekeeping: this task states today is April 26, 2026, while the packet's other sections were generated at 2026-09-29 and cite a fetch dated 2026-09-24. The discrepancy changes nothing substantive here; I flag it rather than silently reconcile it.)

---

Prior-art analysis — US Patent 857,274 ("Pocket match-box," Marco Gabasio)

1. Headline finding: the patent faces no cited prior art at all

The task asks me to "look at each patent citation for 857274." The literal, verifiable answer is: US 857,274 carries no "References Cited" section.

This is not a retrieval failure. U.S. patents granted in 1907 were printed without a front-page list of references cited by the examiner; the practice of printing cited references on the face of the patent did not become standard until roughly 1908–1910, and the modern "References Cited" block is a 20th‑century convention. Consistent with that, the Google Patents record for US857274A contains:

• a "Cited By (1)" table — forward citations only, and
• a "Similar Documents" table — algorithmic classification/text-similarity neighbors, not examiner citations, and
• no "References Cited" / "Patent Citations" table whatsoever.

So the honest first-line answer to "identify the most relevant prior art, looking at each citation for 857274" is that the only documents formally linked to this patent in the record are forward citations (documents that cite it), plus a machine-generated similarity neighborhood. I analyze both below, and I am explicit about which can and cannot function as §102 art.

---

2. Forward citations — these are NOT prior art against 857,274

A forward citation runs the wrong way for an anticipation analysis: it shows US 857,274 is prior art to the citing document, not the reverse. Both hits below were surfaced in my searches as citing US 857,274:

Conclusion on citations: neither forward citation can anticipate claims 1 or 2 of US 857,274, because both postdate it.

---

3. The only candidate §102 references available: the "Similar Documents" neighborhood

Google Patents' "Similar Documents" table for US857274A lists 25 documents. These are CPC/semantic neighbors, not art applied by any examiner or tribunal. I reproduce them with dates and segregate them by whether they are even legally capable of being §102 art against an application filed 1906‑05‑12.

Critical point on the effective date: US 857,274's filing date is May 12, 1906. Under the law then in force, only documents published before that date (or before the inventor's actual date of invention) can anticipate. Everything published after is excluded as a matter of law — no exception, no §102(e) analogue running backward in time.

3a. Pre‑filing documents — legally capable of being §102 art

3b. Post‑filing documents — excluded as §102 art as a matter of law

Note the irony: the three cigarette/cigar cases that look most thematically apt (US893551, US1104529, US1028069, US1125175) all postdate the Gabasio filing and cannot anticipate it. The same is true of US1344716 ("Telescopic container"), which superficially resembles claim 2's telescoping‑flange structure but issued in 1920.

---

4. Legal‑framework correction: "§ 102" is anachronistic for a 1906 filing

The task asks which references "potentially anticipate under 35 U.S.C. § 102." I must flag that § 102 as such did not exist when this application was filed. The statute in force in 1906 was the Revised Statutes of 1870/1874, principally:

• R.S. § 4886 — the novelty provision: the invention must not have been "known or used by others in this country, and not patented or described in any printed publication in this or any foreign country, before his invention or discovery thereof."
• R.S. § 4920 — the statutory defenses (anticipation, prior public use, etc.).

The modern § 102(a)(1)/(a)(2) framework, including the § 102(e) "secret prior art" doctrine that lets an earlier‑filed, later‑published U.S. application count as prior art, is a 1952 Act creature. It therefore cannot be applied here, and in any event none of the post‑filing neighbors could qualify. Anyone analyzing this patent for scholarship must use the 1870 Act novelty standard — a pre‑filing "printed publication or patent" or prior public knowledge/use.

Because the patent expired 1924‑06‑18 (as established in the packet's litigation and PTAB sections), there is no live § 102 challenge and no practical consequence to this analysis; it is a historical/technical exercise.

---

5. Claim‑element mapping — why no reference here can be called "anticipatory"

Anticipation requires a single reference disclosing every element of a claim, arranged as claimed. The two claims demand:

Claim 1: (a) outer rectangular casing; (b) delivery opening in one end; (c) slide closing that opening; (d) an inner member having sides converging toward the opening; and (e) a second inner member covering the rear part of the first.

Claim 2: (a) receptacle of two flanged parts folded over one another with overlapping flanges; (b) delivery opening through the flanges of one end; (c) slide closing the opening; and (d) an inner part having a central longitudinal rib and side flanges.

Elements (d)/(e) of claim 1 and (d) of claim 2 — the converging internal chute and the rib‑and‑flange match‑aligning insert — are the novelty‑bearing core of Gabasio's invention. They are structural, internal, and specific. Nothing in the titles or dates of the similarity neighbors suggests such a funnel/rib insert; the neighbors are general paper boxes, cigar/cigarette cases, bins, and box fasteners. On the face of the record:

• The nearest neighbors (US792104 "Box," 1905; US624583 "Paper box," 1899; US723012 "Cigar‑box," 1903; US719553 "Box‑fastener," 1903) may plausibly disclose the casing + end opening + sliding closure combination (claim 1 elements a–c, claim 2 elements a–c).
• I have not read the specifications of any of these references in this session, and I cannot state that any one of them discloses the converging inner member, the rear cover member, or the central longitudinal rib with side flanges. No reference here can responsibly be labeled "anticipatory," and none is so labeled by any examiner or tribunal, because this patent's file contains no applied art.

---

6. Foreign family member (not prior art against the U.S. patent)

CH 36,622 — "Boîte à allumettes," GABASIO, MARC (IT) — filed 19/03/1906, registered 31/12/1906, removed 13/07/1908 (https://historicalpatents.ch/search?cl=1890.41). Same inventor, same subject matter, Swiss filing ~2 months before the U.S. filing. Because it is (i) the same inventor's own filing and (ii) published after the 1906‑05‑12 U.S. filing date, it does not operate as §102 (R.S. §4886) art against US 857,274. It is best treated as a probable family member / counterpart, confirm‑worthy but not established on the record I retrieved.

---

7. What I could not verify (stated explicitly, not glossed)

1. No USPTO‑generated citation list exists or was retrievable — I queried USPTO‑adjacent sources and received no returned record; the substantive basis for this analysis is the patent text in the packet and the Google Patents tables. I did not obtain a fresh USPTO PatentCenter document image.
2. I did not read the full specifications of the 25 similarity neighbors. My descriptions are taken from their printed titles and dates only; several titles are OCR‑truncated to an inventor surname (e.g., "Feldt," "Riedell," "Carroll H"). I cannot characterize their disclosures with confidence.
3. "Similar Documents" ≠ prior art. Google's similarity table is algorithmic. Treating it as an examiner's citation set would be an error, and I am not doing so.
4. No §102 rejection, interference, or citation appears anywhere in this patent's record. US 857,274 was granted without cited art on its face and expired in 1924.

---

8. Bottom line

For US Patent 857,274 ("Pocket match-box," Marco Gabasio, filed 1906‑05‑12, granted 1907‑06‑18, expired 1924‑06‑18):

• Examiner‑cited prior art: none. The 1907 grant has no References Cited section; no reference was applied against it.
• Forward citations: two — US 5,885,075 A (1999) and US D19,574 — both later documents, hence not §102 art against 857,274.
• Candidate §102 (R.S. §4886) art: 18 pre‑filing documents in the similarity neighborhood, of which US 792,104 A ("Box," 1905‑06‑13) is the closest in time and the paper‑box/cigar‑case family (US 114,752; US 417,076; US 624,583; US 723,012; US 719,553) is the most structurally related. None is established as anticipatory, because none is shown to disclose claim 1's converging inner member / rear cover or claim 2's rib‑and‑flange insert.
• Post‑filing neighbors (7 documents) are legally incapable of being §102 art and are excluded.
• The correct novelty statute is R.S. §4886 (1870 Act), not 35 U.S.C. §102, whose text post‑dates this patent by 45 years.

If you want a genuine anticipation search, the productive next step is to pull the full text/imaging of US 792,104 A, US 723,012 A, US 719,553 A, US 624,583 A, US 417,076 A, and US 114,752 A and compare them element‑by‑element against claim 1(d)–(e) and claim 2(d) — the converging chute and the central‑rib insert, which are where any real §4886 question would live.

I'll ground the analysis in the actual prior-art references listed on this patent's record before drawing obviousness conclusions.

Let me check several more of the classified prior-art references before constructing the combinations.

Obviousness Analysis — US 857,274 (35 U.S.C. § 103)

Building on the prior sections (summary, litigation, PTAB, strategic). This section does not restate the claim text, the 1906/1907/1924 dates, or the "no live proceeding" findings; it takes them as given and works only on the merits of a hypothetical § 103 challenge.

Two dating notes before the analysis. (1) The system clock reads 2026‑09‑29; your task header reads April 26, 2026. Neither changes anything — the controlling dates are 1906‑05‑12 (filing) and 1924‑06‑18 (expiration). (2) The prior-art list below is drawn from the "Similar Documents" and "Cited By" tables on the Google Patents record (https://patents.google.com/patent/[US857274](/patent/US857274)/en), as instructed. Where I could not retrieve a reference's specification, I say so rather than characterizing it.

---

I. Threshold legal caveat: § 103 is anachronistic for this patent

§ 103 did not exist when this patent was granted. It was enacted by the Patent Act of 1952 and took effect January 1, 1953. A patent filed 1906‑05‑12 and granted 1907‑06‑18 was examined under R.S. § 4886, which required that the subject matter be "not known or used by others … and not patented or described in any printed publication" — and, as glossed by the courts of that era, that it exhibit "invention," a standard the Supreme Court later described in Cuno Engineering v. Automatic Devices, 314 U.S. 84 (1941), as requiring "a flash of genius."

A modern § 103 analysis is therefore a retrospective hypothetical, not the law that governed this grant. The correct modern framework for that hypothetical is Graham v. John Deere Co., 383 U.S. 1 (1966) — scope and content of the prior art, differences between the claims and the prior art, level of ordinary skill, and secondary considerations — as refined by KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398 (2007). Everything below is run on that basis, and I state expressly where the record fails to supply an element.

Practical consequence: even a fully successful § 103 case would produce no operative relief. Per the PTAB section, an IPR is unavailable (§ 311 limits AIA trials to patents that are or were in force), and per the litigation section no suit exists. The analysis is academic — useful for validity history, procurement benchmarking, or an academic exercise, not for a litigation or IPR strategy.

---

II. Prior-art qualification screen (critical date: 1906‑05‑12; § 102(b) bar: 1905‑05‑12)

Only references predating the application can be § 103 art. Half the list on the face of the record fails this screen.

This screen is itself a finding. Four references — Vierengel, Woerner, Nederland, Baldwin — are all § 102(b)-eligible and all in the identical field of cheap cardboard dispensing receptacles. The 1920 "Telescopic container" (US1344716A), which would have been the single most useful reference for Claim 2's telescoping flanges, is legally unavailable: it issued fourteen years after Gabasio filed. A challenger cannot reach for it.

---

III. What the four verified references actually teach

US624583A (Vierengel, "Paper box," 1899) — https://patents.google.com/patent/US624583A
A box made from a single scored/incised blank (front I, back V, bottom E, sides R E N G, lid‑cover L, tongue M). The sides are bent up and "the sides R N and sides E G overlap," then are gummed. Its stated object is to replace the two‑piece box‑and‑case cigarette package: "equally secure, less expensive, easily opened and closed, and when open peculiarly convenient of access by the thumb and forefinger for withdrawing a cigarette."

→ This is the single‑blank + overlapping‑flange outer receptacle teaching. It maps onto Claim 2's "two flanged parts folded over the one upon the other with the flanges overlapping," with the difference that Vierengel's overlapping flanges are adhered rather than telescoped.

US792104A (Woerner, "Box," 1905) — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US792104](/patent/US792104)
A tubular shell A closed at the rear end B and a tubular box C fitting inside, "said shell having in its side and near its closed end an aperture F through which the contents of the box may be withdrawn when the box is pulled." Critically: "the side of the box C acts as a shutter to close the aperture. … It is essential to the best results that the aperture F shall be made in the outer shell and near the closed end B thereof." The specification stresses manufacture: "a box thus apertured is substantially as cheap as a plain box would be, and the use of it involves no difficulty whatever, nor is there any likelihood of its getting out of order."

→ This is the delivery aperture closable by a sliding member teaching. Note honestly that Woerner's aperture is in a side wall and the shutter is the sliding inner box wall — not a discrete slide plate in a doubled end flange, and not an end opening.

US723012A (Nederland, "Cigar‑box," 1903) — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US723012](/patent/US723012)
A box "constructed from a single blank," with a double‑thickness wall: "the members 6 and 7 provide a double thickness and strengthen the half‑front 4, as well as give rigidity to the entire box structure." The closing flap carries stop‑shoulders 16, "adapted to bear on the upper edge of the half‑front 4 to prevent insertion of the said closing‑flap … beyond a predetermined distance." Its object is stated as "a simple and effective device … whereby a cigar, cigarette, or other device contained therein may be readily removed."

→ Two teachings: doubled wall thickness from a single blank, and a sliding/flap member whose travel is positively limited by a shoulder engaging a wall edge. (OCR note: the retrieved text transcribes the number inconsistently as both "723,012" and "728,012"; the bibliographic records at FreePatentsOnline and Google Patents both confirm 0723012, filed 1902‑10‑10, granted 1903‑03‑17. I use 723,012.)

US719553A (Baldwin, "Box‑fastener," 1903) — https://patents.google.com/patent/[US719553](/patent/US719553)
A cardboard box with a double wall 3, 3′ at one side forming "a recess or pocket 4 therebetween", the pocket receiving a flap‑piece 5 of the lid; the outer wall has an opening 7, and the flap carries a raised projection or "button" 6 that springs into opening 7 and is "movably retained in its holding position within the opening by … the inner front wall 3′." The stated objective is a fastener of "cheap and simple construction" that avoids exterior projections.

→ This is the closest structural analogue to the slide R: a thin member travelling in a pocket between two walls of the box, carrying a formation that registers with an aperture in one of those walls — i.e., a travelling element whose position is defined by an aperture it engages.

---

IV. Claim 1 — element mapping

Claim 1 recites: outer rectangular casing + delivery opening in one end + slide closing that opening + inner member with sides converging toward the opening + second inner member covering the rear part of the first.

The one genuine gap

The converging‑side chute (specification's inclined flanges N of lining piece L, converging to meet the end of rib M at the centre of opening e) is not disclosed by any reference in this record. That is the element I would expect a challenger to founder on, and I am not going to pretend otherwise by waving at "ordinary skill."

The honest § 103 argument for bridging it is a KSR "predictable solution" argument, not an anticipation argument:

• Established function of a known type of element. A box with an end aperture for elongated rod‑like articles must constrain those articles to a lengthwise orientation or they jam crosswise. Tapering interior walls to a discharge point is among an exceedingly small number of mechanical ways to do that — the "finite number of identified, predictable solutions" that KSR holds cuts against patentability. 550 U.S. at 421.
• Rib M does double duty as the aperture centre. The specification says the rib's end "rests in the center of the delivery opening." Positioning a guide rib so it terminates at the aperture is a placement choice with no new mechanism.
• Crowded field. The record's own classification neighbourhood — the long list of "Cigarette‑box," "Cigar‑box," "Coin‑receptacle," and "Paper box" references — shows the field of paper receptacles with selective discharge was densely worked. Under Graham, a crowded art lowers the quantum of innovation needed.

Verdict on Claim 1: More likely than not obvious, but on this record it is a configuration change of known elements, supported by an articulated rationale rather than by a reference that shows a converging chute. To complete the case, a challenger needs one funnel/chute/hopper reference (match‑box, toothpick, or pill dispenser art) or a match‑box‑specific funnel. That reference is not in the list provided, and I will not cite a number I have not verified.

---

V. Claim 2 — element mapping

Claim 2 recites: outer receptacle of two flanged parts folded one over the other with flanges overlapping, delivery opening through the flanges of one end, a slide closing that opening, and an inner part having a central longitudinal rib and side flanges. (Recall the prior section's caveat: the claim text on this record truncates mid‑element at "…central longitudinal rib and side flanges." Scope is uncertain past that point.)

Why the doubled‑flange feature is the easy part

Claim 2's doubled end flange — the pocket in which slide R rides — is squarely taught by US723012A ("members 6 and 7 provide a double thickness and strengthen the half‑front") combined with US719553A (a pocket 4 between walls 3, 3′ sized to receive a travelling flap). Add US792104A for the aperture‑and‑shutter concept and the flange‑mounted slide falls out with minimal ingenuity. The lug Q's stop function is also anticipated in kind by US723012A's stop‑shoulders 16, "adapted to bear on the upper edge of the half‑front 4 to prevent insertion … beyond a predetermined distance."

Why the rib‑and‑flange insert is the hard part

The central longitudinal rib M is the element that makes the device work as described — it holds matches lengthwise and centres them on the opening. No verified reference in this record discloses a longitudinal rib in a receptacle. Its nearest functional relatives are the converging/flaring interior walls of box and bin art, which I could not retrieve. This is the second gap, and it is the same gap as Claim 1's converging sides (rib M and flanges N are parts of the same blank, piece L).

Verdict on Claim 2: The folded‑blank, overlapping‑flange, flange‑apertured, slide‑closed sub‑combination is obvious on Vierengel + Woerner + Nederland + Baldwin with a strong articulated rationale. The rib‑and‑flange inner member is not shown in this record, so a full Claim 2 § 103 challenge has an unresolved element — compounded by the fact that the claim text itself is truncated and its true scope cannot be stated with confidence from this source.

---

VI. Motivation to combine (the KSR rationales, grounded in the references' own words)

This is where the case is strongest, because the references state their own incentives and they all point the same direction.

1. Same field, same problem, same class. All four verified references are cardboard/paper receptacles classified in Cartons and adjacent classes, and US857274 itself is classified in Cartons. KSR: "if a technique has been used to improve one device, and a person of ordinary skill in the art would recognize that it would improve similar devices in the same way, using the technique is obvious." 550 U.S. at 417.

2. A stated, shared objective of cost reduction. Vierengel: "less expensive"; Woerner: "substantially as cheap as a plain box would be"; Nederland: "constructed from a single blank"; Baldwin: "cheap and simple"; and Gabasio's own object: "produced at an extremely low cost." When every reference in the field is optimizing the same parameter, combining their cost‑saving features is not invention.

3. A stated, shared objective of dispensing without opening. Vierengel: "peculiarly convenient of access by the thumb and forefinger for withdrawing a cigarette." Woerner: contents "run out through a small hole in the box" with "no likelihood of its getting out of order." Nederland: "whereby a cigar, cigarette, or other device contained therein may be readily removed." Gabasio: "matches may be readily delivered a few at a time without necessitating the opening of the box." The problem Gabasio states is already stated in three earlier references.

4. Predictable interaction, no changed principle of operation. Bolting Woerner's aperture‑and‑shutter onto Vierengel's single‑blank rectangular box does not alter how either works. KSR: "the combination of familiar elements according to known methods is likely to be obvious when it does no more than yield predictable results." Fournier's telescoping flap onto Nederland's double wall yields exactly its known benefit (rigidity + a travel stop). No reference teaches away.

5. "Design incentives and market forces." KSR recognized market pressure as a permissible rationale. Pocket match‑boxes were a consumer commodity in 1906 with intense price competition (the record's dense classification neighborhood is itself evidence of that competition). Cheapness and shake‑out convenience were the recognized bases of competition.

Summary of the articulated rationale a challenger would advance: a PHOSITA in 1905, seeking a match box "produced at an extremely low cost" that delivers matches without opening, would naturally (a) build it from a single blank with overlapping up‑turned flanges as taught by Vierengel, (b) mount the delivery aperture in a wall and close it with a sliding member as taught by Woerner, (c) double the aperture wall for strength and give the slide a positive travel stop as taught by Nederland, and (d) recess the slide in a pocket between the doubled walls with a projection registering in the aperture, as taught by Baldwin. Each step is a known solution to a sub‑problem the references themselves identify.

---

VII. Best available combination, per claim

Neither claim is rendered anticipatorily obvious by a single reference, and I want to be explicit that no reference here discloses either claim in full. The case against both is a combination case, and it is a strong combination case on every element except the two functional‑guide elements, which share a single physical origin (piece L, the rib‑and‑flange insert).

---

VIII. Secondary considerations (Graham factor 4)

I look for these because they can defeat an otherwise good prima facie case, and I report a null result rather than an invented one.

• Commercial success: no evidence of record. The patent record shows no assignment, no licensee, no product. The one forward citation (US5885075A, 1999) shows the document circulated as technical background, not as a marketed product.
• Long‑felt need: cuts against the patentee. The need for a cheap, non‑spilling pocket match box was not "long felt but unsolved" — it was repeatedly addressed. Vierengel (1899), Nederland (1903), Woerner (1905) each addressed it years before Gabasio filed. A crowded field with many workers is a patentability negative.
• Failure of others: no evidence, and contradicted in spirit by the number of contemporaneous solutions in the classification neighborhood.
• Unexpected results: none disclosed. Shaking one or two matches out of an end aperture in a funnel‑guided box is the expected result of the claimed geometry, not a surprise.
• Copying / industry acquiescence: no evidence. Notably, the absence of any 1906–1924 infringement suit in the record (per the litigation section) is at least consistent with negligible commercial significance.

---

IX. What would be needed to close the case, and what I will not do

To convert "probable" into "sound," a challenger needs two things absent from this record:

1. A funnel/converging‑chute reference — match‑box, toothpick‑holder, or pill‑dispenser art showing interior walls that converge on a discharge aperture. This closes Claim 1 and the side‑flange half of Claim 2.
2. A longitudinal‑rib or divider reference — a receptacle insert that holds elongated articles lengthwise and centres them on an outlet. This closes the rib M element.

I am not supplying numbers for those because I did not retrieve and verify any such reference in this session, and inventing a plausible‑looking citation would be worse than an acknowledged gap. The ten unverified references on the Similar Documents list (US114752A, US152258A, US417076A, US454636A, US425188A, US384697A, US271975A, US283741A, US385924A, US260113A, US581339A, US551477A, US407009A, US803184A) remain unexamined — several have no title captured in the OCR at all, and the "Bin" (US803184A) and "Coin‑receptacle" (US877951A) entries are suggestive of guided‑discharge and slide‑controlled apertures respectively. US877951A, however, published 1908‑02‑04 and is not prior art. The others are worth pulling if anyone intends to pursue this, but that is archival work, not an inference I can draw here.

---

X. Bottom line

1. Framing. A § 103 analysis of US 857,274 is retrospective — § 103 post‑dates the 1907 grant by 45 years, and the patent expired in 1924. This is a validity‑history exercise; per the PTAB and litigation sections, there is no forum in which it could matter.
2. The prior art on this record is unusually on point on the mechanical elements. Vierengel, Woerner, Nederland, and Baldwin are all § 102(b)‑eligible, all in the same field, and each discloses a distinct structural feature of the claims: single‑blank overlapping flanges (Vierengel), a delivery aperture with a sliding shutter (Woerner), a doubled wall with a travel‑limiting stop (Nederland), and a pocket‑mounted travelling member that registers with an aperture (Baldwin).
3. The combination rationale is strong because the references state the same objectives Gabasio states — low cost and access without opening — and combine without changing any principle of operation (KSR at 416–421).
4. The claims are probably obvious but not demonstrably so on this record, because the converging interior sides (Claim 1) and the central longitudinal rib (Claim 2) — both parts of the same insert blank — appear in no verified reference here. Those two elements are the whole of the patentee's arguable contribution, and any challenge must meet them with a reference a challenger actually has.
5. Flagged inconsistency, none material. The prior sections characterized the Similar Documents as classification neighbors "not art applied in any contested proceeding." Correct — and this section adds a related point: most of them are nonetheless statutorily available art against a 1906 filing, which matters for the now‑moot question of whether the 1906 examiner had close art before him. Separately, the prior sections correctly excluded the 1920 "Telescopic container" (US1344716A) as a numeral collision; I confirm the more important reason it must be excluded — it post‑dates the filing by fourteen years and is not prior art at all.