Harry C Miller's manipulation-proof permutation lock

[Jack Sullivan]

According to an internet article titled A Lock on the Business dealing with the life of Harry C Miller & his relationship with Sargent & Greenleaf (see A Lock on the Business ) "He set out to develop a manipulation-proof lock & received a patent for his invention. Seeking a manufacturer for the new lock, he approached the Sargent & Greenleaf Company, a lockmaker based in Rochester, NY. The lock was a success & became a new standard for government containers. Miller later became the president & owner of Sargent & Greenleaf."

The references I found for this lock gave an issue date of 26 June 1962 & two Canadian patent numbers: CA64302 & CA64366, both titled 'Manipulation-Proof Permutation Lock.' (The first 3 attached thumbnails are from the -02 patent & the last 3 are from the -66 patent). Interestingly, I found no U.S. equivalents to these patents. (See espacenet - results view ).

I haven't read either of these 33-page patents but they appear from the thumbnail drawings to be different. In fact, as stated in the -66 patent, they are divisions of the original application dated 1 May 1953.

This article seems to infer that Miller's new lock design was the start of his highly successful career at S&G. However, from my files I have another Miller patent patent US2951358 filed 27 December 1957 & assigned to S&G. So it would appear that Miller was either employed by or otherwise working for S&G for some years prior to the 1962 granting of his Canadian patents. The dates do suggest that his manipulation-proof lock design was filed with the Canadian patent office long before his association with S&G.

I'm sure that there is literature regarding Miller's history with S&G that I haven't seen yet. I hope others might be able to supply additional information.

Jack

[wylk]

You might consider getting a copy of "TruCenter, The Harry C. Miller Story" (written by A.M. Davis in 2005 for SAVTA), which is 80 pages. I believe LockMasters had copies and may still. It's been a long time since I read it so I can't comment from memory.

[wylk]

You may have missed US patent 2,575,674 which was filed 3/26/1949 and granted 11/20/1951. It is clearly the MP lock though with a pin-tumbler mechanism added to the dial and a rack-and-pinion operating the "butterfly".

[Jack Sullivan]

You may have missed US patent 2,575,674 which was filed 3/26/1949 and granted 11/20/1951. It is clearly the MP lock though with a pin-tumbler mechanism added to the dial and a rack-and-pinion operating the "butterfly".

Thanks. Good observation. The lock in this patent is certainly a good candidate to be the subject lock. I was attracted to the 2 Canadian patents because MP appears in the title & the one you cite does not. But here the history starts getting murky. Is the single patent mentioned in that article the design Miller brought to S&G or is it the slightly later one shown in the 2 Canadian patents? If the reference you cite is indeed the candidate, why did Miller go to the trouble of filing the 2 33-page Canadian patents 2 years later?

I would think that a master locksmith & inventor of Harry C Miller's status would deserve a detailed & scholarly biography that would hopefully shed light on details such as this. It would be an interesting project but with an undefinable market. It certainly would involve getting access to S&G's corporate files & archives which might be difficult considering all the Government security work they have been involved with.

Jack

[Syd Waterman]

Interesting.
Attached is the head page for the U.K. patent 651,187 that refers to Application made in the United States of America on March 26,1949.
Points of interest -- The UK patent was published March 14th 1951 and the application was made by Sargent & Greenleaf, INC.
No mention of Harry Miller's name in the patent document.
By the way.. The diagrams are identical to U.S. 2,575,674.

Patent

[Jack Sullivan]

Interesting.
Attached is the head page for the U.K. patent 651,187 that refers to Application made in the United States of America on March 26,1949.
Points of interest -- The UK patent was published March 14th 1951 and the application was made by Sargent & Greenleaf, INC.
No mention of Harry Miller's name in the patent document.
By the way. The diagrams are identical to U.S. 2,575,674.

Patent

Even more interesting is the German patent to Miller (of Fairfax, VA, near Washington, DC, not Rochester, NY) filed in Germany on 7 April 1950, issued on 13 November 1952 & assigned to S&G. The attached figures are for comparson with the US patent. This may confirm that US2575674 is the relevant patent & that the Canadian patents to Miller (and not S&G) were perhaps only refinements.

Miller was involved with high security Government work during WWII, so his residing across the Potomac River in 1950 during the height of the Cold War is not surprising.

Jack

[Jack Sullivan]

You may have missed US patent 2,575,674 which was filed 3/26/1949 and granted 11/20/1951. It is clearly the MP lock though with a pin-tumbler mechanism added to the dial and a rack-and-pinion operating the "butterfly".

For comparison purposes with that German patent I just posted, here are the figures from the US patent you reference that was NOT assigned to S&G. These drawings appear to be the same as those found in the German patent that was assigned to S&G.

Jack

[wylk]

Various points --

Miller may have initially invented the lock on his own (as discussed in TruCenter) and then patented it and then sold the design to S&G. Hence no assignment in the initial patent granting, but it was probably assigned later when S&G accepted the lock for production.

Today, international patent reciprocity is probably better than in the 1950s. An S&G lawyer might have decided it was worth re-patenting the design in Canada, UK, Germany, possibly elsewhere. By that time S&G had already bought the design and so the assignment was recorded as part of those newer patents. And by that time somebody came up with "Manipulation Proof" hence it was added to later patent titles. I wonder if Harry cringed at the MP moniker, knowing that nothing was truly manipulation proof (hence his omission of this in the original patent).

TruCenter is a rather nice biography of Harry C. Miller. It may not be a scholarly work but it's OK. Other resources could include LockMasters (who own/house the Harry C. Miller lock collection), and as mentioned the S&G records assuming nobody has thrown them out. I don't know if S&G has an official historian like some companies do. His sons/grandsons and other family could be a valuable resource for a serious biographer.

[Jack Sullivan]

Various points --

Miller may have initially invented the lock on his own (as discussed in TruCenter) and then patented it and then sold the design to S&G. Hence no assignment in the initial patent granting, but it was probably assigned later when S&G accepted the lock for production.

Today, international patent reciprocity is probably better than in the 1950s. An S&G lawyer might have decided it was worth re-patenting the design in Canada, UK, Germany, possibly elsewhere. By that time S&G had already bought the design and so the assignment was recorded as part of those newer patents. And by that time somebody came up with "Manipulation Proof" hence it was added to later patent titles. I wonder if Harry cringed at the MP moniker, knowing that nothing was truly manipulation proof (hence his omission of this in the original patent).

TruCenter is a rather nice biography of Harry C. Miller. It may not be a scholarly work but it's OK. Other resources could include LockMasters (who own/house the Harry C. Miller lock collection), and as mentioned the S&G records assuming nobody has thrown them out. I don't know if S&G has an official historian like some companies do. His sons/grandsons and other family could be a valuable resource for a serious biographer.

Good points.

I don't see anything more than a link for general information for the Miller lock collection. Nicholasville looks like a nice drive south of the Cincinatti airport. I once drove from that airport, past the main gate of Ft Knox, & to a charming 19th-century hotel near the Ohio River in NE KY called The Doe Run Inn, after the place name. Extremely rural & very beautiful. A visit of a few days to LSI might be a really nice adventure! But I doubt very much that a big corporation with Government security concerns is going to let anyone into 60+-year-old files even if they still exist.

I think the issue of the patent story here is one for an experienced patent attorney or searcher. Attached is the INPADOC Family record for the US patent. The only equivalent is the German. The German patent is assigned to S&G, the US is not, even though they have identical priority dates of 26-3-49. I think the only thing we can assume is that Miller & S&G had some very involved negotations prior to that date & that there were very good reaons why these patents were issued as they were.

Jack

[wylk]

The German patent is assigned to S&G, the US is not, even though they have identical priority dates of 26-3-49.

First, I think we're trying to make a big issue with the assignments, and it's not a big deal.

Second, if I understand "Priority Date" correctly, it is different than filing date; it's used to resolve possible conflicts between multiple inventors making the same claim (think of it as an "I invented it first" feature). I can't read German, but here's an example timeline: 1949, Miller files the US patent, indicating no assignment at that time; S&G agrees to purchase rights but it's too late to record assignment in the US patent; S&G files a German patent on Miller's behalf and indicates assignment and also a priority date matching the US patent.