Fail-safe access control chamber security system

Details Fail-safe access control chamber security system Fail-safe access control chamber security system

1999-11-17

2001-10-30

Gall, Lloyd A. (Department: 3627)

Safes, bank protection, or a related device

Bank protection devices

Trapping mechanisms

C049S068000, C109S007000, C109S068000

Reexamination Certificate

active

06308644

ABSTRACT:

FIELD OF THE INVENTION
This invention relates to security access systems for banks or the like which satisfy fire department regulations, handicapped regulations, and which in also meets the needs of the bank for reasonably rapid access and the prevention of robberies. The system makes use of multiple security doors which lock to prevent more than one door from opening at a time, and to prevent the inner-most door from opening when a weapon such as a gun is detected by a metal detector.
BACKGROUND OF THE INVENTION
Several types of access control vestibules are known, but do not meet the requirements for use with banks within the U.S. because they do not provide the minimum access time required to be effective in a bank, they do not provide adequate security to keep out weapons, do not present an adequate appearance acceptable by a bank, are expensive to maintain and operate, are expensive and labor intensive to install, and are not adequately secure. Some common access control security systems are suggested in U.S. Pat. No. 5, 195,448, to Sims, U.S. Pat. No. 4,656,954 to Tonali, and U.S. Pat. No. 4,481,887 to Urbano. These and other common access control chamber systems have significant problems which allow criminals who plan around the system to enter the secured building with a weapon. The known systems are either too costly to make and operate, do not provide the minimum access rate for banks to use, do not operate effectively to keep out persons carrying weapons, or do not have a good appearance.
In one example of a method a criminal could use to evade a common access control chamber system, a would -be bank robber can open the outer entry door and throw a weapon between the metal detector panels without activating the unit, proceed to the second entry door, pick up the weapon and enter the bank. Another means of evading a common access control chamber system uses two bank robbers who enter the outer entry door together. The first robber, who has no weapon, then proceeds to the second entry door while the second robber, who has a hidden weapon, straddles the entryway putting his feet on the metal framing, waits for the first robber to open the second entry door, and then both enter the bank. In yet another method of evading a common access control chamber system, a would-be bank robber would proceed inside the entry chamber, activate the metal detector, drop his weapon on the floor, exit the chamber through first entry door, wait for operator to reset the system, and then re-enter, pick up his weapon and enter the bank. Finally, a common access control chamber system could be evaded if while a customer was exiting from a chamber, an armed robber entered the bank through the exit outer door chamber and leaves a weapon for a second robber who is unarmed standing by the inner exit door. The second robber would then open the inner exit door and pick up the weapon. These and other methods of evading common access control chamber security systems render common access control chamber systems partially effective.
Protective door systems of the type which provides some degree of protection and security for banks and similar office environments are well known in the art. One well known device of this type (U.S. Pat. No. 4,060,039 to Lagarrigue) shows a security system having embodiments with a circular or a rectangular shape, the rectangular shaped embodiment having a side-by-side entrance and exit chamber, each with an entrance door into the chamber and an exit door out of the chamber. A control system causes the second door to lock when a weapon carried by a person is detected inside the entrance chamber, preventing the person carrying the weapon from entering the bank. If a weapon is not detected, the second door is unlocked only when the first door of the entrance chamber has been closed and locked. This prevents a person inside the entrance chamber from holding the second door open while another person who may have a weapon enters the entrance chamber. The first door cannot be opened when the second door is open or a person is on a contact pad on the floor of the entrance chamber. One big disadvantage of the Lagarrigue access system is that the walls are made of concrete and thus a bank personnel cannot observe a person passing through the vestibule. A person in a wheel chair or a police or security officer carrying a weapon could not be observed. Also, the concrete walls do not provide a good appearance to match the front of the bank.
The metal detector in the Lagarrigue patent is only for detecting Ferro-magnetic metals such as steel, and operates on measuring changes in a static magnetic field (also called Continuous wave technology), not changes in high frequency electromagnetic fields. The metal detector in Lagarrigue also includes several magnetic field sources (such as ferrite magnets) arranged on each of the two side walls of the chamber and fills the area to be crossed by a person with magnetic fields. A series of large induction loops are adjoined to the magnetic field sources. An electronic device averages or adds the induction voltages being generated in the induction loops of the area crossed by the person. As a result, the reading obtained is practically independent of the location where the weapon is taken through the area.
Another disadvantage of the Lagarrigue system is that the concrete walls must be poured at the assembly site, and must make use of molds to form the walls. Concrete construction is a very timely and costly construction method, and banks do not want to create a construction site at their front door.
Another disadvantage of the Lagarrigue system is the use of double doors. Banks want a system with a single door as opposed to double doors used in the Lagarrigue patent. Double doors require twice the number of locks, making the system more expensive, and the double doors provide a space or gap between them in which an intruder can insert a tool to pry open the doors, making the system less secure.
Another disadvantage of the Lagarrigue system is that the metal is—from a security standpoint—designed to detect “Ferro-magnetic metals” only, which in today's world is impractical, considering the wide array of weapons made from exotic, non-Ferro-magnetic materials such as stainless steel, zinc or aluminum and even plastics or ceramics.
Another disadvantage with the continuous wave based metal detectors of the Lagarrigue patent is that the detectors have high false alarm rates caused by poor electrical interference. The amount of electrical instrumentation used in today's environment is much more than at the time of the Lagarrigue invention. If the unit false alarms often, it will eventually be turned off or ignored by the security personnel, thus defeating its purpose.
Another disadvantage with the metal detector of the Lagarrigue invention is that, because the electronic device uses one series of loops to pick up the magnetic field generated by metals, the system cannot distinguish between a weapon and several pieces of metals carried by a person on several parts of the body, such as the keys, coins, metal watches, jewelry and other small items of metal carried by the person. Thus, the metal detector would indicate the presence of a weapon when no such weapon is present.
Another well known device of this type (U.S. Pat. No. 4,481,887 to Urbano) shows a security door and system of installation having bullet-proof walls and doors, the system being constructed in modular form for on-site assembly, the framework is made of steel or heavy aluminum, the vestibule (chamber) is rectangular or box shaped, the doors open automatically by photo cells, green and red lights indicating whether to wait or pass through the system, an automatic timing device is provided and operates after a person has entered the vestibule through the first door a predetermined time period to open the second door and allow the person to leave the vestibule and enter the building, overhead ventilators, the side walls and doors are made of transparent bulletproof glass or pla

Affiliated with

Also associated with

Rating

Fail-safe access control chamber security system does not yet have a rating. At this time, there are no reviews or comments for this patent.

If you have personal experience with Fail-safe access control chamber security system, we encourage you to share that experience with our LandOfFree.com community. Your opinion is very important and Fail-safe access control chamber security system will most certainly appreciate the feedback.

Rate now

Comments { 0 }

Profile ID: LFUS-PAI-O-2569609