# Oxalic Acid Vaporizer & Patents Question



## Cyan (Jan 27, 2015)

I currently do not own an OA vaporizer and was thinking of making my own. I've seen multiple posts with people showing what they have built, and I've looked into what could be bought commercially. But I'm wondering about patent infringement if I were to build my own. Obviously, I would not be copying with the intent to manufacture & sell nor would anything I make be a direct copy anyway.

So that leaves the question: are the commercial vaporizers on the market patented or is it an unpatented item all together?


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

This will help you find your answer

https://www.google.com/advanced_patent_search


----------



## Cyan (Jan 27, 2015)

Thanks!! I had no idea Google had that feature. Lol


----------



## zonedar (May 14, 2015)

As long as you don't sell it, you can copy designs to your hearts content.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Making a home made copy of a patented device for personal use is indeed patent infringement. This is true even if you didn't know of the patented device, i.e. accidental copying. It is just that the amount of damages is so small the patent owner won't bother to come after you.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

If they are patented, there are a lot of people that are going to get into trouble:

http://www.ebay.com/sch/i.html?_odk...0.H0.Xvapori.TRS0&_nkw=vaporizer&_sacat=46527

I doubt they are though.


----------



## Groundhwg (Jan 28, 2016)

zonedar, sorry but that is incorrect. It is considered patent infringement no matter what you are using or doing with the item.


----------



## Cyan (Jan 27, 2015)

Regardless, I believe that most of the patents for the vaporizers are design patents. Create my own design, and problem solved. :thumbsup:


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

I'm sure you all have seen my homemade oav gadget in 
action before. No need to worry about any patent infringement.
Yes, definitely invent your own is better. No battery needed!


----------



## Brad Bee (Apr 15, 2013)

beepro said:


> I'm sure you all have seen my homemade oav gadget in
> action before.


We've seen smoke, and possibly mirrors, (as long as we're over 18 years old, or those who can hack their parents account) but nobody on the planet has seen this mythical gadget that you've posted about for years.


----------



## Brad Bee (Apr 15, 2013)

duplicate


----------



## Groundhwg (Jan 28, 2016)

beepro said:


> I'm sure you all have seen my homemade oav gadget in
> action before. No need to worry about any patent infringement.
> Yes, definitely invent your own is better. No battery needed!


New here. Never seen your OAV or heard about it. Care to share?


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4D2vLtiF2fI
My vid is on you tube. And because of the sensitive nature
of this video dealing with a potential harmful chemical (oa), I
put in on age restriction so that the little kids lurking here cannot play with it.
This also hinder some members who do not have you tube access. But
that is o.k. to safeguard this infos. The smoke is not just that but the actual
oav going into the hive. Right now my hives almost have no more mites. I'm
a bit concern now because I don't want to buy the mites from somewhere else.
Too much oav testing will cripple the mite population in the hives. The test is
necessary to make improvement on my oav gadget. Soon I have to seek out nearby
beekeepers to oav their mite infested hives. I have a Russian guy that I used to buy
queens from but no more. He's sick and tired of dealing with the mites also. Even
the amitraz when applied will not work because his mites have developed resistant too in the long run.
Two years ago he had asked me how to get rid of the mites. Now I have an answer for him but not back then.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

beepro said:


> And because of the sensitive nature of this video dealing with a potential harmful chemical (oa), _I put in on age restriction so that_ _the little kids lurking here cannot play with it._


wee-ird


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Cyan said:


> So that leaves the question: are the commercial vaporizers on the market patented or is it an unpatented item all together?


The only one that I know that has a patent is the Varrox.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

snl said:


> The only one that I know that has a patent is the Varrox.


And then the next question is what does the patent cover. I seriously doubt that the vaporization process itself if patented. If someone came up with a new way to greatly improve the process, then that could be patented. Just throwing out a stupid example here, but if somebody developed a container (reservoir) with a delivery system (small auger) that delivered the proper amount of OA to the hot plate and included controls to optimize the delivery rate, that could be patented.


----------



## snl (Nov 20, 2009)

Nabber86 said:


> And then the next question is what does the patent cover. I seriously doubt that the vaporization process itself if patented.


The patent only covers the mechanical design and operation of that vaporizer (so that it can't be duplicated and sold). Of course it does not cover OAV itself.


----------



## Harley Craig (Sep 18, 2012)

shinbone said:


> wee-ird


you just said a mouth full.


----------



## Brad Bee (Apr 15, 2013)

Groundhwg said:


> New here. Never seen your OAV or heard about it.


Nobody else has ever seen his OAV "gadget" either.


----------



## RCorl (Mar 24, 2012)

US Patent 7,578,722 has the following independent claims: 

1. An apparatus for vaporizing and blowing vaporized pesticide from a container into a bee hive comprising: i) an elongate housing having a top side portion, an open front discharge end portion and a partially closed rear end portion; ii) a heated receptacle positioned within a front portion of the housing; iii) a fan positioned within a rear portion of the housing; iv) a longitudinal slide, slidingly positioned within the top side portion of the housing, said slide having a rear manipulation end portion extending through the rear end portion of the elongate housing and a front end portion having a dosimetric cavity therethrough; and, v) a container receptacle to receive the pesticide container carried inverted on the top side portion of the elongate housing, positioned above the slide and configured so that when the dosimeter cavity is aligned beneath the container, the dosimeter cavity fills with pesticide, and then when the slide is moved sufficiently longitudinally, the pesticide is delivered to and then falls through an opening onto the heated receptacle to be vaporized, and thereafter is blown by the fan through the discharge end portion of the housing into the bee hive. 

11. A method of vaporizing and blowing vaporized pesticide into an infected bee hive comprising the steps of: i) providing an apparatus as in claim 1; ii) filling the pesticide container with pesticide and attaching the container to a top side portion of the housing; iii) prewarming the apparatus; iv) pressing the slide forward to thereby fill the dosimetric cavity therein with pesticide; v) positioning the discharge end portion of the housing in the entrance to the infected beehive; and, vi) retracting the slide thereby turning on the fan and blowing vaporized pesticide into the bee hive within seconds. 

Its the claims that define what the invention is and what you can't make, use or sell.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

RCorl said:


> Its the claims that define what the invention is and what you can't make, use or sell.



Nailed it. https://www.reddit.com/r/threadkillers


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Nabber86 said:


> Just throwing out a stupid example here, but if somebody developed a container (reservoir) with a delivery system (small auger) that delivered the proper amount of OA to the hot plate and included controls to optimize the delivery rate, that could be patented.



Thanks, RC! Yes, my oav gadget design is a lot efficient with the optimized option
built in. Potentially it has the design that you can patent it. I'm always debating whether
or not to release my plan here and the potential to disrupt the sales of the current oav unit on
the market. For sure it will phase them out not because of the disruptive technology but of
the simplicity of the design and its effectiveness. Ten bucks to make compare to the expansive
one on the market is a no brainer. That is why nobody can see its design yet although the vids
I made are from last year documenting the entire burn process that you can see the actual
unit in operation. So yes, you can design one and patented it yourself too!


----------



## Stephenpbird (May 22, 2011)

Beepro, I have a much better vaporizer than yours, it's cost is lower at less than a dollar, works perfectly. They are so cheap that you have one per hive. You place one in a hive move on to the next hive in the apiary. You can do about 12 hives before the first is finished and ready to be removed. 
I would share the idea with you, but then its so top secret I would have to shoot you!!!

Put up or shut up. This constant posting about a vaporizer that is revolutionary but secret is getting so old.

PS. Mine exists and is a aromatherapy oil burner and has been in use in Europe for over 12 years. Interestingly it is considered as the vaporizer to replace battery operated units. Sadly I did not invent it but am happy to share the idea. After all that's what forums are for.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

"_Potentially it has the design that you can patent it._"

Beepro - public use of an invention, even where the device itself is hidden from sight, starts a 1 year clock ticking, where the inventor has 1 year to file a patent application, or forever lose the right to do so. No extensions are possible. The only exception allowed is for experimental use, where certain conditions must be met to prove the public use was required for testing/research purposes to prove or further improve the invention. 

The video you posted of your vaporizer vaporizing OA into a hive constitutes a public use. Furthermore, the date on that video is April 23, 2015. Unfortunately for you, the requirements for experimental use aren't met in this situation.

Consequently, your video has foreclosed on the possibility to patent your vaporizer.




.


----------



## Rader Sidetrack (Nov 30, 2011)

Here is a *25 cent* version of an oxalic acid vaporizer! 



Daniel Y said:


> On the subject of untested ideas. Here is a poor mans method of OAV. Get a small metal cup. Walmart has some for about 99 cents for 4. place a lit hooka coal in it and then put a dose of OA on a piece of aluminum foil. Place that on top of the frames of your hive. cover it and walk away. you can come back in an hour or two or the next day and remove the cup. Not my favorite way to do it and you do not get that really great cloud like you do with the vaporizers. but it does work. I still keep coals and cups on hand. if I am running short on time during one of my scheduled treatment days I can grab those coals lite them all with a torch. drop them in the cups with a small pair of tongs. get the OA doses set up and drop them in the hives. I can treat 20 hives this way in about 10 minutes. When I get back from whatever. I can go back out and remove the cups.


----------



## Daniel Y (Sep 12, 2011)

I will repeat, as long as you do not sell it, you can copy anything you want. I am an artist, writer and have put together teaching materials. Yes you can commit copywrite and patent infringement by teaching stuff. and I know the rules like the back of my hand. I can copy anyones art work as long as I do not sell it. I can draw a picture of any celebrity I like as long as I do not sell it. I make pens with the KU and KSU logos on them. that I had to get right to do. I can copy as much as 3 bars of anyones song and use it to teach with no problem. any more and I have to gain the rights to use the music. just an example of what I have learned over the years. but you can make anything at any time for yourself. You can even cannibalize their parts to do so. say take a broken unit and restore or improve it. walk around with their brand name on it. and they cannot do a thing about it. That much right was purchased when they sold the item in the first place.


----------



## Brad Bee (Apr 15, 2013)

Stephenpbird said:


> Put up or shut up. This constant posting about a vaporizer that is revolutionary but secret is getting so old.



100% truth.

It also doesn't help that he claims his bees clean the mites off each other. If the OAV he has "wink, wink" worked like he claims it did, then he would have no mites for his bees to groom off. I figure his OAV is as good as his mite lickers.


----------



## deknow (Jul 17, 2006)

I have only limited experience with the patent process.

I am aware of the general '1 year' clock, but I don't believe what is written below is correct.

He has not revealed or discussed how the thing works, or shown it. With the scenereo you posit below, how would one know in 2 years if he was patenting that particular vaporizer or a completely new (and separately patentable) design?

I don't believe he has made any claims as to how his design works, or what would be patentable about it.

If he did not show or describe the device, and all he showed was smoke, it would be hard to describe it as public use...public use of what?

The precedent that talks about 'public use' and 'hidden from sight' dates back to 1881, and involves the use of steel to reinforce ladies corsets.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Egbert_v._Lippmann

It seems that this has somewhat been overturned in recent years (see the wikipedia article), but in the case of the corset, the steel stay was 'hidden from view', but it was described for 'the viewers'. In the case of the vaporizer, he might have hampsters on a wheel generating electricity offscreen, or there might be a small nuclear reactor.



shinbone said:


> Beepro - public use of an invention, even where the device itself is hidden from sight, starts a 1 year clock ticking, where the inventor has 1 year to file a patent application, or forever lose the right to do so. No extensions are possible. The only exception allowed is for experimental use, where certain conditions must be met to prove the public use was for testing/research purposes to prove or further improve the invention.
> 
> The video you posted of your vaporizer vaporizing OA into a hive constitutes a public use. Furthermore, the date on that video is April 23, 2015. Unfortunately for you, the requirements for experimental use aren't met in this situation, and that exception does not apply.
> Consequently, through your actions, you can not patent your vaporizer.


----------



## gnor (Jun 3, 2015)

Brad Bee said:


> Nobody else has ever seen his OAV "gadget" either.


The vid perfectly illustrates "blowing smoke." k:


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

deknow said:


> He has not revealed or discussed how the thing works, or shown it. With the scenereo you posit below, how would one know in 2 years if he was patenting that particular vaporizer or a completely new (and separately patentable) design?
> 
> I don't believe he has made any claims as to how his design works, or what would be patentable about it.
> 
> If he did not show or describe the device, and all he showed was smoke, it would be hard to describe it as public use...public use of what?


The public use bar is based on forfeiting rights by not timely exercising them. It is a question of inaction by the inventor, to which the above points have no bearing. Completing an invention, _using_ it in public (which is different from _displaying_ it in public, as in no public display is required), but not applying for a patent within one year is deemed "not a timely exercise" for patent law purposes.

Congress has decided a patent is good for 20 years from date of filing. If the inventor could use the invention, but postpone patenting it for some long period of time, say 10 years, but still get a patent, then, effectively, the inventor has extended the life of his patent by those 10 years. Publicly use it, but postpone filing for 20 years, then the invention gets 40 years of monopoly protection. Etc. Congress wants the inventor to get his monopoly for use of the invention for 20 years, but not longer, thus the 1 year time bar for filing. And, this 1 year time period is considered a grace period. In contrast, most foreign countries don't offer any kind of a grace period - the bar to filing attaches immediately upon the public use. 

And, the steel-corset-stiffeners case is still good law.



.


----------



## Groundhwg (Jan 28, 2016)

gnor said:


> The vid perfectly illustrates "blowing smoke." k:


Yep it sure seems that there is some "smoke blowing" going on with the beepro oav. Could get as much smoke leaving a lit cigar in front of the camera and likely do as much good at treating mites. For me seeing is believing and so far have I have not seen anything that led me to believe that he even has anything that works.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

shinbone said:


> "_Potentially it has the design that you can patent it._"
> 
> Beepro - public use of an invention, even where the device itself is hidden from sight, starts a 1 year clock ticking, where the inventor has 1 year to file a patent application, or forever lose the right to do so. No extensions are possible.
> 
> Consequently, your video has foreclosed on the possibility to patent your vaporizer.


No, not really. The 1-year clock starts ticking after filling a provisional application. I am not sure what that is, but I assume it involves a lot of government paperwork including full design plans. From what it says below, filing a provisional application puts your device into a "patent pending" condition; from which time you have a year to file a non-provisional application.


http://www.uspto.gov/patents-gettin...t-applications/provisional-application-patent

_A _provisional application for patent has a pendency lasting 12 months from the date the provisional application is filed. *The 12-month pendency period cannot be extended. *Therefore, an applicant who files a provisional application must file a corresponding nonprovisional application for patent (nonprovisional application) during the 12-month pendency period of the provisional application in order to benefit from the earlier filing of the provisional application. However, a nonprovisional application that was filed more than 12 months after the filing date of the provisional application, but within 14 months after the filing date of the provisional application, may have the benefit of the provisional application restored by filing a grantable petition (including a statement that the delay in filing the nonprovisional application was unintentional and the required petition fee) to restore the benefit under 37 CFR 1.78.


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

Nabber86 said:


> No, not really. . . .


Letting a provisional application expire is one form of a time bar. Other 1-year time bars are triggered by non-experimental public use (as in Bee Pro's case), an offer for sale, publication (meaning pretty much _any_ type of non-protected public disclosure), and patenting in a foreign country.

Here is a short discussion of patent time bars, which is one attorney's interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a):

https://www.fenwick.com/publications/Pages/Statutory_Bars_Patent_Rights.pdf


----------



## RCorl (Mar 24, 2012)

shinbone said:


> Letting a provisional application expire is one form of a time bar. Other 1-year time bars are triggered by non-experimental public use (as in Bee Pro's case), an offer for sale, publication (meaning pretty much _any_ type of non-protected public disclosure), and patenting in a foreign country.
> 
> Here is a short discussion of patent time bars, which is one attorney's interpretation of 35 U.S.C. 102(a):
> 
> https://www.fenwick.com/publications/Pages/Statutory_Bars_Patent_Rights.pdf


Letting a provisional application expire is not a bar to obtaining a patent, as long as you did not publish, use in public, disclose to others, or patent elsewhere. You simply lose your claim to the date of filing, so if someone comes up with the same invention in the meantime, you can't claim to be the first inventor. Provisional applications are not published or reviewed by the patent office.


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

Thanks again to RC and deknow.
I have not disclose it to others in detail. Matter of fact it is only a 
guessing game and a lot of hot smoke blowing by foreign and domestic members here alike.
What if I tell you that no battery is required that everything is in its natural state from beginning
until the end. I have not put it in public use either. Nobody has used it other than myself. When members
here asked me in the past to show my publication I told them I don't have one written down. Only
my oav gadget in design and still perfecting it. So what is the benefit to the public when nobody
has ever use it, huh? On second thought maybe I should keep this a secret forever and let the 
members here buy the expensive oav unit on the market. So this is how the sellers here monopolized
the oav market. Remember that things are still in its infancy development. By the time I have perfected
it I'm sure it won't be the same unit compare to what I have now. R&D takes time whether you have the
patience or not. I'm sorry!


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

shinbone said:


> "_Potentially it has the design that you can patent it._"
> The only exception allowed is for experimental use, where certain conditions must be met to prove the public use was required for testing/research purposes to prove or further improve the invention.
> 
> The video you posted of your vaporizer vaporizing OA into a hive constitutes a public use.


I have not posted anything about my vaporizer "only smoke" as mentioned by a few members here.
So technically I have not disclosed anything nor have anybody seen my oav pics (the actual heart of the
oav components.) Also, this is an experimental oav unit not the actual final design that you can patent yet. 
So what are the conditions for an experimental oav unit for granting further extension of the time to patent it? 
I don't really know. Have anybody ever actually seen my oav gadget design other than the smoke coming out of it?
Now that you all have enlightened me I'm sure the final workable, improvement until no more improvement version
will be quite different than what I've shown you on the you tube vid. So who's going to prevent me from making a
patent of the components?


----------



## shinbone (Jul 5, 2011)

RCorl said:


> Letting a provisional application expire is not a bar to obtaining a patent, as long as you did not publish, use in public, disclose to others, or patent elsewhere. You simply lose your claim to the date of filing, so if someone comes up with the same invention in the meantime, you can't claim to be the first inventor. Provisional applications are not published or reviewed by the patent office.


RCorl - you are cutting and pasting from the internet without context. Provisionals are filed precisely because there is an event that creates a statutory bar. While filing the Provisional tolls the statutory bar, it creates an effective new bar date, which is 1 year from the filing date. Thus, if the Provisional is allowed to expire without filing a Non-Provisional, the invention will be time barred. 

And, Beepro's comments unfortunately show he has decided to ignore the basics of U.S. patent law, even after they are explained to him.


----------



## beepro (Dec 31, 2012)

No mater because I don't plan to patent my invention.
Growing the bees is my main goal. Bees are more important
than the patent right now. By the time the one year 
expired another design will take its place different from
the experimental one. At least I have learn something here about the patent law.


----------



## Cyan (Jan 27, 2015)

The idea I had is also somewhat different than the OA vaporizers that I have seen to date. But patenting the idea isn't a priority. Not to mention, I'd give it a month on the market before foreign markets began counterfeiting it- just like I see with the vaporizers coming out of eastern Europe.


----------



## Nabber86 (Apr 15, 2009)

shinbone said:


> Provisionals are filed precisely because there is an event that creates a statutory bar. While filing the Provisional tolls the statutory bar, it creates an effective new bar date, which is 1 year from the filing date. Thus, if the Provisional is allowed to expire without filing a Non-Provisional, the invention will be time barred.


So what "event" in Beepro's case occurred that has created a statutory bar?


----------

