Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 18/265,644

SQEEZABLE SUBCUTANEOUS PORT

Non-Final OA §102§103
Filed
Jun 06, 2023
Examiner
AHMED, TASNIM M
Art Unit
3783
Tech Center
3700 — Mechanical Engineering & Manufacturing
Assignee
Portal Access Inc.
OA Round
1 (Non-Final)
80%
Grant Probability
Favorable
1-2
OA Rounds
2y 9m
To Grant
86%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 80% — above average
80%
Career Allow Rate
342 granted / 427 resolved
+10.1% vs TC avg
Moderate +6% lift
Without
With
+6.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 9m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
459
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.5%
-38.5% vs TC avg
§103
36.9%
-3.1% vs TC avg
§102
29.9%
-10.1% vs TC avg
§112
21.9%
-18.1% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 427 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2, 7-9, 11, and 14 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Stellon et al (US 2010/0286484). Regarding claim 1, Stellon discloses: A subcutaneous port (10; Fig. 1), comprising: a rigid inner member (14) (¶0030 – semi-rigid plastic) comprising a cavity (20; Fig. 5) opened to a first cavity opening closed with a septum member (17), configured for repeated needle penetrations therethrough into the cavity (¶0030), and to a second cavity opening (16) configured for facilitating fluid communication between the cavity and a lumen of a catheter (5; Fig. 10); and an outer member (12) comprising of flexible material (¶0032 – flexible material) connected to the inner member (14) along at least one lateral periphery portion (46; Fig. 4) of the inner member (14) thereby forming a predetermined spatial shape of the subcutaneous port (Fig. 6) when in an elastically relaxed state (¶0032 – the default shape is that of Fig. 6 and must be compressed to fit within a surgical opening); wherein the subcutaneous port (10) is configured to squeeze into a subcutaneous void (distal opening within a patient as seen in Fig. 10) when pushed through a surgical opening (I; Fig. 8) greater than a maximal cross-sectional circumference of the inner member (14) and smaller than a maximal cross-sectional circumference of the predetermined spatial shape (Fig. 6) (Fig. 10; ¶0032 – outer member 12 is compressed to fit within a surgical opening I; the subcutaneous port 10 is fully capable of reducing in maximal width by at least 10% when the outer member is compressed under a force greater than 5 N and by at least 25% when the outer member is compressed under a force greater than 20 N, as the outer member 12 is folded almost in half as seen in Fig. 8). Regarding claim 2, Stellon discloses: The subcutaneous port according to claim 1, wherein the subcutaneous port (10) in the elastically relaxed state (Fig. 6) is greater than the inner member (14) by at least 50% in width, in area and/or in volume (the port 10 in total is greater than 50% in volume than inner member 14), in a maximal axial cross section (cross section of the view in Fig. 6) of the predetermined spatial shape. Regarding claim 7, Stellon discloses: The subcutaneous port according to claim 1, wherein the flexible material includes soft elastomer and/or silicone rubber (¶0026 - silicone). Regarding claim 8, Stellon discloses: The subcutaneous port according to claim 7, wherein the flexible material (12) fills most or all space formed in the predetermined spatial shape around the inner member (14) (Fig. 3). Regarding claim 9, Stellon discloses: The subcutaneous port according to claim 1, comprising at least one elastic extension (15) stiffer than the flexible material (material of outer member 12), projecting from the inner member (14) and surrounding the at least one lateral periphery portion (46) of the inner member (14), wherein the at least one extension (15) is embedded in the flexible material (12) (Fig. 3; the extension 15 is semi-rigid and is therefore fully capable of distributing compressing loads originating from a locally compressed portion to other portions of the outer member). Regarding claim 11, Stellon discloses: The subcutaneous port according to claim 10, wherein the at least one extension (15) is configured to approximate the at least one lateral periphery portion (46) of the inner member (14) when the outer member (12) is compressed laterally (see Fig. 8) and/or extended axially proximally relative to the inner member. Regarding claim 14, Stellon discloses: The subcutaneous port according to claim 9, wherein the at least one extension (15) encircles or surrounds most or all lateral periphery (46) of the inner portion (14). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claims 25-26 and 29-32 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Stellon. Regarding claim 25, Stellon discloses: A method comprising: forming a surgical opening (I; Fig. 7) across skin layers (T) of a subject, the surgical opening (I) comprising an opening neck portion enclosing and restricting a maximal opening circumference (Fig. 10); creating a subcutaneous void beneath the skin layers (T) via the surgical opening (I); providing a subcutaneous port (10; Fig. 1) comprising a rigid inner member (14) (¶0030 – semi-rigid plastic) and a flexible outer member (12; ¶0032 – flexible material), and configured to reduce in maximal width (Fig. 8); pushing the subcutaneous port (10) into the subcutaneous void via the surgical opening (I), the subcutaneous port (10) has a predetermined spatial shape (Fig. 6) having a maximal cross-sectional circumference greater than the maximal opening circumference (circumference of incision I) when in an elastically relaxed state (Fig. 6), the subcutaneous port (10) is locally elastically compressible along a length (length of diameter) thereof; wherein the pushing forces the subcutaneous port (10) to elastically compress in diameter and/or extend proximally in length when pressed against the opening neck portion, thereby allowing squeezing of the subcutaneous port through the surgical opening (¶0032). Stellon discloses all of the elements of the claim but is silent regarding reducing in maximal width “by at least 10% when the outer member is compressed under a force greater than 5 N, and/or by at least 25% when the outer member is compressed under a force greater than 20 N.” However, Fig. 8 of Stellon discloses the outer member being compressed in width by about 50%, which would be possible by a force greater than 5 N or 20 N. As such, Stellon makes obvious reducing the width by at least 10% when the outer member is compressed under a force greater than 5 N, and/or by at least 25% when the outer member is compressed under a force greater than 20 N as required by the claim. Regarding claim 26, Stellon discloses: The method according to claim 25, following the pushing, comprising allowing the subcutaneous port (10) to voluntarily expand elastically up to the elastically relaxed state (¶0033). Regarding claim 29, Stellon discloses: The method according to claim 25, wherein the subcutaneous port (10) includes a flexible outer member (12) connected to a rigid inner member (14) along at least one lateral periphery portion (46; Fig. 2) of the inner member (14) thereby forming the predetermined spatial shape of the subcutaneous port (Fig. 3) when in an elastically relaxed state (Fig. 6). Regarding claim 30, Stellon discloses: The method according to claim 29, wherein the rigid inner member (14) comprising a cavity (20; Fig. 5) opened to a first cavity opening closed with a septum member (17), configured for repeated needle penetrations therethrough into the cavity (¶0030), and to a second cavity opening (16) configured for facilitating fluid communication between the cavity and a lumen of a catheter (5; Fig. 10). Regarding claim 31, Stellon discloses: The method according to claim 29, wherein the outer member (12) is configured with elastic resistance to compression sufficient to maintain the predetermined spatial shape within a surgically formable subcutaneous void when under naturally occurring subcutaneous stresses (Fig. 10; ¶0033). Regarding claim 32, Stellon discloses: The method according to claim 29, wherein the pushing forces the outer member (12) to compress locally against the inner member (14) while substantially maintaining an overall volume thereof by enlarging remotely to a compressed region thereof (Fig. 10). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 10, 12-13, 27-28, and 33-34 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to TASNIM M AHMED whose telephone number is (571)272-9536. The examiner can normally be reached M-F 9am-5pm Pacific time. Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Bhisma Mehta can be reached at (571)272-3383. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /TASNIM MEHJABIN AHMED/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3783
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 06, 2023
Application Filed
Jan 10, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103 (current)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12599722
SYRINGE HOLDER
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12599727
Syringe with Suction-Based Automatic Disabling
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12594383
LOCK MECHANISM FOR A MEDICAMENT DELIVERY DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12594380
Medication Injector Assembly And Method Of Use
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12564689
INJECTION DEVICE AND COMPONENTS THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 03, 2026
Study what changed to get past this examiner. Based on 5 most recent grants.

AI Strategy Recommendation

Get an AI-powered prosecution strategy using examiner precedents, rejection analysis, and claim mapping.
Powered by AI — typically takes 5-10 seconds

Prosecution Projections

1-2
Expected OA Rounds
80%
Grant Probability
86%
With Interview (+6.4%)
2y 9m
Median Time to Grant
Low
PTA Risk
Based on 427 resolved cases by this examiner. Grant probability derived from career allow rate.

Sign in with your work email

Enter your email to receive a magic link. No password needed.

Personal email addresses (Gmail, Yahoo, etc.) are not accepted.

Free tier: 3 strategy analyses per month