Prosecution Insights
Last updated: April 19, 2026
Application No. 17/848,856

CAMERA MODULE

Final Rejection §102§103
Filed
Jun 24, 2022
Examiner
NIGAM, NATASHA
Art Unit
2872
Tech Center
2800 — Semiconductors & Electrical Systems
Assignee
Samsung Electro-Mechanics Co., Ltd.
OA Round
4 (Final)
65%
Grant Probability
Favorable
5-6
OA Rounds
3y 3m
To Grant
89%
With Interview

Examiner Intelligence

Grants 65% — above average
65%
Career Allow Rate
17 granted / 26 resolved
-2.6% vs TC avg
Strong +23% interview lift
Without
With
+23.3%
Interview Lift
resolved cases with interview
Typical timeline
3y 3m
Avg Prosecution
41 currently pending
Career history
67
Total Applications
across all art units

Statute-Specific Performance

§101
1.4%
-38.6% vs TC avg
§103
47.4%
+7.4% vs TC avg
§102
22.1%
-17.9% vs TC avg
§112
26.0%
-14.0% vs TC avg
Black line = Tech Center average estimate • Based on career data from 26 resolved cases

Office Action

§102 §103
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 . Response to Amendment The Amendment filed 10/31/2025 has been entered. Claims 1-20 remain pending. Claims 12-15 are rejected. Claims 1-11 and 16-20 are allowed. Response to Arguments Applicant’s arguments, see pages 7-15, filed 10/31/2025, with respect to claims 1-11 and 16-20 have been fully considered and are persuasive. The rejection of 08/13/2025 has been withdrawn. Applicant's arguments filed 10/31/2025, with respect to claims 12-15, have been fully considered but they are not persuasive. Applicant argues there is no teaching or suggestion of the feature “a length of the first buffer member in the optical axis direction is less than a length of the first buffer member in the second direction perpendicular to the optical axis.” Specifically, applicant argues that the protrusions 175 of Kim ‘089 are disposed on the stopper not on a lens holder, therefore the limitation is not met. However, Wu is used to disclose the first buffer members disposed on the lens holder. Kim ‘089 is only used to teach the shape of the first buffer members. It has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 Claim(s) 12-15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lim et al. (US 20150346587 A1), hereinafter Lim, in view of Wu et al. (US 20220385136 A1), hereinafter Wu, and further in view of Kim (US 20220163089 A1), hereinafter Kim '089. Regarding independent claim 12, Lim discloses a camera module comprising: a housing (housing 110; ¶0026; Figure 1); a carrier (first frame 310; ¶0032; Figure 1) accommodated in the housing (housing 110) (Figure 1) and configured to move in an optical axis direction (first frame 310 may move in a height direction (the Z axis direction based on Fig. 1); ¶0038; Figure 1); and a lens holder (third frame 330; ¶0034; Figure 1) accommodated in the carrier (first frame 310) (Figure 1). Lim does not disclose a first buffer member disposed on a first side surface of the lens holder and configured to face a first sidewall of the carrier in a first direction perpendicular to an optical axis; and a second buffer member, separate from the first buffer member, and disposed on a second side surface of the lens holder and configured to face a second sidewall of the carrier in a second direction perpendicular to both the optical axis and the first direction, wherein a length of the first buffer member in the optical axis direction is less than a length of the first buffer member in the second direction perpendicular to the optical axis. However, Wu teaches a first buffer member (shock-absorbing components 600; ¶0038; Figure 3) disposed on a first side surface (side walls 330; ¶0038; Figure 3) of the lens holder (frame 300; ¶0038; Figure 3) and configured to face a first sidewall (side walls 520; ¶0038; Figure 3) of the carrier (housing 500; ¶0038; Figure 3) in a first direction perpendicular to an optical axis (Figure 3); and a second buffer member (shock-absorbing components 600; ¶0038; Figure 3), separate from the first buffer member (600; Figure 3), and disposed on a second side surface (side walls 330; ¶0038; Figure 3) of the lens holder (frame 300) and configured to face a second sidewall (side walls 520; ¶0038; Figure 3) of the carrier (housing 500) in a second direction perpendicular to both the optical axis and the first direction (Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim to incorporate the teachings of Wu to include first and second buffer members on the lens holder and configured to contact the carrier in order to absorb shock if the assembly is subjected to an impact or vibration (¶0038 of Wu). Wu does not teach a length of the first buffer member in the optical axis direction is less than a length of the first buffer member in the second direction perpendicular to the optical axis. However, Kim ‘089 teaches a similar camera module comprising a housing (110; Fig. 1; ¶0036), a carrier (120; Fig. 1; ¶0036), and a lens holder (130; Fig. 1; ¶0036), and further comprises a first buffer member (175; Fig. 3; ¶0076) and a second buffer member (175; Fig. 3; ¶0076), wherein a length of the first buffer member (175) in the optical axis direction is less than a length of the first buffer member (175) in the second direction perpendicular to the optical axis (Fig. 3). It has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim and Wu to change the shape of the first buffer member as taught by Kim ‘089 for the purpose of more efficiently fitting it on the existing shape of the lens holder and since it has been held that a mere change in shape of an element is generally recognized as being with in the level of ordinary skill in the art when the change in shape is not significant to the function of the combination. In re Dailey 149 USPQ 47 (CCPA 1966). Regarding claim 13, Lim in view of Wu and further in view of Kim ‘089 discloses the camera module of claim 12, including the first buffer members and second buffer members, as set forth above. Lim fails to disclose the second buffer members are configured to contact the carrier based on a movement of the lens holder in at least one of a first direction perpendicular to the optical axis and a second direction perpendicular to both the optical axis and the first direction. However, Wu teaches the second buffer members (shock-absorbing components 600) are configured to contact the carrier (housing 500) based on a movement of the lens holder (frame 300) in at least one of a first direction perpendicular to the optical axis (in lateral directions; ¶0038; Figure 3); and a second direction perpendicular to both the optical axis and the first direction (in lateral directions; ¶0038; Figure 3). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim to incorporate the teachings of Wu to include first and second buffer members on the lens holder and configured to contact the carrier for the purpose of absorbing shock if the assembly is subjected to an impact or vibration (¶0038 of Wu). Regarding claim 14, Lim in view of Wu and further in view of Kim ‘089 discloses the camera module of claim 12, including the first buffer members and second buffer members, as set forth above. Neither Lim nor Wu disclose the lens holder comprises insertion members at least partially inserted in the lens holder, and the second buffer members are disposed on the insertion members. However, Kim ‘089 teaches an element (150; Fig. 3) comprises insertion members (170; Fig. 3; ¶0082) at least partially inserted in the element (Fig. 3; ¶0082), and the second buffer members (175) are disposed on the insertion members (170) (Fig. 3; ¶0076). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Lim and Wu to incorporate the insertion members of Kim ‘089 for the purpose of more effectively implementing a step-by-step shock absorption (¶0077 of Kim ‘089). Regarding claim 15, Lim in view of Wu and further in view of Kim ‘089 discloses the camera module of claim 12, as set forth above. Lim further comprises: a shield case (shield can 120; ¶0026; Figure 1) coupled to the housing (housing 110) (Figure 1) and configured to cover an upper portion of the carrier (first frame 310); and third buffer members (buffer member 500; ¶0025; Figures 1, 3A) configured to contact the shield case (¶0058-¶0059; Figures 1, 3A) based on a movement of the carrier (first frame 310) in the optical axis direction (to move smoothly in the optical axis direction; ¶0050) with respect to the housing (housing 110) (Figure 1). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 1-11 and 16-20 are allowed. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the features/limitations of applicant's independent claims, in such a manner that a rejection under 35 U.S.C. § 102 or § 103 would be proper. Regarding independent claim 1, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the camera module as claimed. None of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of a camera module specifically including, as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations, first buffer members coupled to the OIS cover, wherein a distance between the lens holder and the first buffer members is less than a distance between the lens holder and the OIS cover, and wherein an air gap is formed in an optical axis direction between the OIS cover and the lens holder when the lens holder is in contact with the first buffer members. Specifically, the examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments in the remarks of 10/31/2025. Regarding independent claim 16, the prior art taken either singly or in combination fails to anticipate or fairly suggest the camera module as claimed. None of the prior art either alone or in combination disclose or teach of a camera module specifically including, as the distinguishing features in combination with the other limitations, first dampers disposed on a lower surface of the OIS cover, and configured to protrude toward an upper surface of the OIS movable body, wherein the OIS movable body is configured to contact the first dampers when the OIS movable body moves toward the OIS cover in the optical axis direction, and wherein an air gap is formed in the optical axis direction between the OIS cover and the OIS movable body when the OIS movable body contacts the first dampers. Specifically, the examiner agrees with applicant’s arguments in the remarks of 10/31/2025. Conclusion THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a). A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any nonprovisional extension fee (37 CFR 1.17(a)) pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the mailing date of this final action. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to NATASHA NIGAM whose telephone number is (571)270-5423. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8-5. 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, Ricky Mack can be reached at (571)272-2333. 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. /NATASHA NIGAM/Examiner, Art Unit 2872 January 5th, 2026 /George G. King/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2872
Read full office action

Prosecution Timeline

Jun 24, 2022
Application Filed
Dec 27, 2024
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Mar 27, 2025
Response Filed
Apr 28, 2025
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Aug 01, 2025
Request for Continued Examination
Aug 05, 2025
Response after Non-Final Action
Aug 11, 2025
Non-Final Rejection — §102, §103
Oct 31, 2025
Response Filed
Jan 05, 2026
Final Rejection — §102, §103
Feb 24, 2026
Applicant Interview (Telephonic)

Precedent Cases

Applications granted by this same examiner with similar technology

Patent 12601934
Removable Eyewear Filter
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 14, 2026
Patent 12596206
ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Apr 07, 2026
Patent 12585082
LENS DRIVING DEVICE, AND CAMERA MODULE AND OPTICAL DEVICE INCLUDING SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 24, 2026
Patent 12571627
LASER EMITTER, DEPTH CAMERA AND ELECTRONIC DEVICE
2y 5m to grant Granted Mar 10, 2026
Patent 12554178
OPTICAL SYSTEM AND APPARATUS HAVING THE SAME
2y 5m to grant Granted Feb 17, 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

5-6
Expected OA Rounds
65%
Grant Probability
89%
With Interview (+23.3%)
3y 3m
Median Time to Grant
High
PTA Risk
Based on 26 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