Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/942,823

Battery Arrangement and Method of Assembling the Same

Non-Final OA §103
Filed
Sep 12, 2022
Examiner
RHEE, JANE J
Art Unit
1724
Tech Center
1700 — Chemical & Materials Engineering
Assignee
Sonova AG
OA Round
3 (Non-Final)
86%
Grant Probability
Favorable
3-4
OA Rounds
2y 10m
To Grant
98%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 86% — above average
86%
Career Allow Rate
954 granted / 1110 resolved
+20.9% vs TC avg
Moderate +12% lift
Without
With
+12.4%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
2y 10m
Avg Prosecution
32 currently pending
Career history
1142
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
0.2%
-39.8% vs TC avg
§103
43.0%
+3.0% vs TC avg
§102
41.5%
+1.5% vs TC avg
§112
3.7%
-36.3% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 1110 resolved cases

Office Action

§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 . Continued Examination Under 37 CFR 1.114 A request for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, including the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e), was filed in this application after final rejection. Since this application is eligible for continued examination under 37 CFR 1.114, and the fee set forth in 37 CFR 1.17(e) has been timely paid, the finality of the previous Office action has been withdrawn pursuant to 37 CFR 1.114. Applicant's submission filed on 1/21/26 has been entered. Rejections Withdrawn 1. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejection of claims 1-9,11 anticipated by Leedom et al. has been withdrawn due to amendment filed on 1/21/26. Rejections Repeated 2. The 35 U.S.C. 102(a) rejection of claims 12-14 anticipated by Juneau et al. has been repeated as previously made in office action 4/10/25. 3. The 35 U.S.C. 103(a) rejection of claim 15 unpatentable over Juneau et al. has been repeated as previously made in office action 4/10/25. New Rejections Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 4. Claim(s) 1-9,11 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Leedom et al. in view of Vos et al. (US20210100508). As to claim 1, Leedom et al. discloses a battery arrangement (figure 18 number 24) for a hearing device, comprising a case (96) for a battery, wherein the case comprises a case bottom and a case top configured as a lid for the case bottom, wherein a main chamber (102) is defined within the case for receiving the battery, wherein a pre-chamber (above 102 that includes 96,20,100,98) is defined within the case adjacent the main chamber (102), wherein one of a wiring and printed circuit board (98,100,104,20) is electrically connected to the battery and led through the pre-chamber out of the case, wherein the pre-chamber is filled with a filling material (104 is in a mold). Leedom et al. fail to disclose wherein the prechamber is filled with glue. Vos et al. teaches wherein the prechamber is filled with glue for the purpose of environmentally protecting the inside of the cavity (paragraph 0121). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time applicant's invention was made to provide Leedom et al. with wherein the prechamber is filled with glue for the purpose of environmentally protecting the inside of the cavity (paragraph 0121). As to claim 2, Leedom et al. discloses wherein the pre-chamber has a first slot toward the main chamber and a second slot leading out of the case for leading the one of the wiring and the printed circuit board through (figure 18 number 98,100,104). As to claim 3, Leedom et al. discloses wherein the first and second slots extend to a top side of the case bottom (figure 18 number 74,98,100,104). As to claim 4, Leedom et al. discloses wherein the first slot is oriented in a tangential direction with regard to the main chamber (figure 18 number 98). As to claim 5, Leedom et al. discloses wherein the pre-chamber extends to at least one surface of the case in an assembled state thereof (figure 18 above number 102 including 96,20,100,98). As to claim 6, Leedom et al. discloses wherein at least one of the main chamber (figure 18 number 102) and the pre-chamber (figure 18 above number 102 including 96,20,100,98) is cylindrical with an essentially circular cross section. As to claim 7, Leedom et al. discloses wherein the pre-chamber(figure 18 above number 102 including 96,20,100,98) is arranged adjacent a periphery of the cylindrical main chamber (102). As to claim 8, Leedom et al. discloses, wherein an axis of the cylindrical pre- chamber (figure 18 above number 102 including 96,20,100,98) is in parallel with an axis of the cylindrical main chamber (102). As to claim 9, Leedom et al. discloses wherein the printed circuit board is a flexible printed circuit board (paragraph 0055). As to claim 11, Leedom et al. discloses a hearing device, comprising a battery arrangement according to claim 1 (paragraph 0054). Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments with respect to claim(s) 1-9,11 have been considered but are moot because the new ground of rejection does not rely on any reference applied in the prior rejection of record for any teaching or matter specifically challenged in the argument. Applicant's arguments filed 1/21/26 have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. In response to applicant’s argument that Juneau does not disclose an accumulator. Juneau discloses a battery and by definition of an accumulator, it is defined as a storage battery therefore, Juneau discloses an accumulator. In response to applicant’s argument that Juneau fail to disclose filling the prechamber with a filling member, Juneau discloses filling the cavity 74 which comprises the electronic components with the liquid polymeric or elastomeric material. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to JANE J RHEE whose telephone number is (571)272-1499. The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday (10-6:30). 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, Miriam Stagg can be reached at 571-270-5256. 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. /JANE J RHEE/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1724
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Sep 12, 2022
Application Filed
Apr 04, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Jul 08, 2025
Response Filed
Oct 01, 2025
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)
Oct 01, 2025
Examiner Interview Summary
Oct 29, 2025
Final Rejection — §103
Dec 18, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Jan 21, 2026
Request for Continued Examination
Jan 27, 2026
Response after Non-Final Action
Feb 03, 2026
Non-Final Rejection — §103
Mar 23, 2026
Interview Requested
Apr 01, 2026
Examiner Interview Summary
Apr 01, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12603392
SQUARE SECONDARY BATTERY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD THEREOF
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12597634
PRODUCING METHOD FOR LITHIUM-ION SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12592437
SQUARE TYPE BATTERY AND MANUFACTURING METHOD OF SQUARE TYPE BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 31, 2026
Patent 12562419
BUTTON-TYPE SECONDARY BATTERY
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 24, 2026
Patent 12548826
EXTERIOR MATERIAL FOR POWER STORAGE DEVICE, METHOD FOR MANUFACTURING SAME, AND POWER STORAGE DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 10, 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

3-4
Expected OA Rounds
86%
Grant Probability
98%
With Interview (+12.4%)
2y 10m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 1110 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