Shackled Padlocks securing the doors of tractor trailers, storage containers, trailers and vans are cut by thieves who use a variety of cutting tools such as acetylene cutting torches, grinders, saws, and the like. Bolt cutters continue to be a commonly used tool for cutting padlocks because of their portability and reduced time, light, and sound generation. Thus there is a need to secure such doors without use of shackled padlocks, capitalizing on the inherent door structure and minimizing the points of exposure. As such, the shackle of the lock can be cut, the body of a padlock can be secured and twisted with leverage to snap the lock, the swing latch through which the lock may be secured to the handle can be cut to eliminate the stable connection of the lock to the immobile door. The rivet on the swing latch can be drilled thereby negating the functionality of the swing latch. The operating handle can be cut allowing illicit turning of the locking rod while the lock remains in the door's latch with the now cut remaining portion of the handle resting idly. The rivet in the handle hub that affixes the operating handle to the upright locking rod can be drilled out again eliminating functionality—thus leaving the entire length of the operating handle with the locked latch on the door while having un-impeded access to turning the stanchion rod which then allows the claws at the top and the bottom of the door to become un-affixed to the body of the previously secured container or trailer. The right door is typically the only door secured by a lock because the right door's seal secures the left door. Increasing use of the Caribbean tool and other devices to bend the right door's short securing plate, and other devices that cut connecting bar locks, dictates a need to secure both doors. Whereas most containers are not owned by the shipper, holes can not be drilled and internal locking rods or mounted locks are not allowed without penalty or financial remuneration. Doors can either have one vertical locking rod or stanchion that runs the height of the door on each door or two per door for a total of four locking rods with accompanying handle hubs, operating handles, and latches. The inventor's U.S. Pat. No. 7,162,898 issued Jan. 16, 2007, shows a security device for preventing rotation of the inside stanchion securing the door hinged to the right side of the rear of a container.
The security device of this invention locks the vertical stanchion of either a right door or a left door of a cargo container. If there are two locking rods on each door for a total of four rods on the container, the rods can be secured individually using one device per rod. The security device includes a cross bar housing consisting essentially of a puck house for a puck lock and a pair of aligned channel bar wings extending from laterally opposite sides of the puck house. The security device also includes a stanchion hook with vertically spaced claws that slide under and partly around the vertical stanchion on vertically opposite sides of a hub on the stanchion to which an operating handle is pivotally connected by a pivot pin or rivet. The stanchion hook is designed for universal application. It accommodates stanchion rods that open either in a clockwise direction or in a counter-clockwise direction. Similarly, the cross bar housing is designed such that it can accommodate installation of the hook at either of its laterally opposite sides; hence the ambidexterity of its application. The puck house has a cavity for a hockey puck type lock and includes two parallel tabs in the cavity which have aligned vertical openings for reception of the locking bar of the lock. The hook includes a flat projection or palm which fits in either one of two guide ways in the puck house and includes a tab with an opening that is also engageable by the locking bar of the puck lock. One of the two channel bar wings covers the handle hub permanently affixed to the stanchion when the device is installed, thereby preventing rotation of the stanchion and maintaining the stanchion in a locked position. When the device is locked to the stanchion, the shackle-less puck lock is protected by the walls of the puck house defining the cavity in which the lock rests.
One embodiment of the invention is illustrated in the drawings in which:
As shown in the accompanying drawings, the security device 11 has two main components, namely, a cross bar housing 21 and a stanchion hook 22. The cross bar housing 21 includes a puck house 23 having a pair of laterally spaced vertical side walls 31, 32, a sloping roof 33, a bottom wall 34, a horizontal top or ceiling wall 36 and a vertical back wall 37. The puck house 23 also includes a first intermediate vertical wall 61 welded to the bottom wall 34 and the side walls 31, 32 and an intermediate vertical wall 71 welded to the ceiling wall 36 and the side walls 31, 32. The intermediate vertical walls 61, 71 are parallel to the back wall 37. The side walls 31, 32, the bottom wall 34, the upper or ceiling wall 36, the back wall 37 and the intermediate walls 61, 71 are rigidly interconnected, as by welding, and form a pocket or cavity 38 for a puck lock 19. The front to rear stepped relationship of the intermediate vertical walls 61, 71 matches the stepped rear surface 70 of the puck lock 19, as shown in
As shown in
Referring to
As illustrated in
The substantially symmetrical design of the cross bar housing 21 and the hook 22 allow the illustrated security device to be used to secure vertical stanchions which are rotated in different directions to unlock doors. This advantageous feature with major redesign of earlier art has been achieved at minimum increase in manufacturing cost.
Features of this invention are disclosed in U.S. provisional patent application Ser. No. 60/984,506 filed Nov. 1, 2007, for an Ambidextrous Cross Bar Security Device for Container Door Stanchions for which benefit under 35 U.S.C. 120 is claimed.
Number | Name | Date | Kind |
---|---|---|---|
4372136 | Mickelson | Feb 1983 | A |
4877276 | Pastva | Oct 1989 | A |
5118149 | Emmons | Jun 1992 | A |
5145222 | Meyer | Sep 1992 | A |
5284036 | Rosenbaum | Feb 1994 | A |
D351984 | Victor | Nov 1994 | S |
5743118 | Anderson | Apr 1998 | A |
5775747 | Navarsky | Jul 1998 | A |
5791702 | Liroff | Aug 1998 | A |
5857721 | Liroff | Jan 1999 | A |
5934116 | Moore | Aug 1999 | A |
5953941 | Freund | Sep 1999 | A |
5984387 | Zeller | Nov 1999 | A |
6442982 | Larsen et al. | Sep 2002 | B1 |
6519982 | Brammall et al. | Feb 2003 | B1 |
6536815 | Liroff | Mar 2003 | B1 |
6553798 | Larsen et al. | Apr 2003 | B1 |
6581419 | Strodtman | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6581425 | Brown et al. | Jun 2003 | B1 |
6591641 | Cann | Jul 2003 | B1 |
6622533 | Santini | Sep 2003 | B1 |
6834896 | Smith | Dec 2004 | B2 |
6915670 | Gogel | Jul 2005 | B2 |
6983629 | Gogel | Jan 2006 | B1 |
7162898 | Gogel | Jan 2007 | B2 |
7210316 | Falconer et al. | May 2007 | B1 |
7249476 | Wilson et al. | Jul 2007 | B2 |
7272963 | Rosenberg et al. | Sep 2007 | B2 |
7278663 | Witchey | Oct 2007 | B2 |
7380846 | Moreno | Jun 2008 | B1 |
7412856 | Gogel | Aug 2008 | B1 |
20040211231 | Larsen et al. | Oct 2004 | A1 |
20050144991 | Bravo et al. | Jul 2005 | A1 |
20070062227 | Thomsen | Mar 2007 | A1 |
20100037664 | Pitisethakarn | Feb 2010 | A1 |
Number | Date | Country | |
---|---|---|---|
60984506 | Nov 2007 | US |