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. Information Disclosure Statement The Information Disclosure Statement ( lDS ) submitted on 07/12/2023 is in compliance with the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered. Specification Objections The abstract exceeds 150 words. Applicant is reminded of the proper language and format for an abstract of the disclosure. The abstract should be in narrative form and generally limited to a single paragraph on a separate sheet within the range of 50 to 150 words in length. See MPEP § 608.01(b)C. Appropriate correction is requested. 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. Claims 1- 3, 6, 8-9, 18-20 and 22-31 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gassend (US20190011544A1) in view of Migdal ( US5870220A ). Regarding claim 1 , Gassend discloses a LIDAR system (Fig. 7, LIDAR system with elements 710, 712, 714, 716, 718 and 720; ¶ 113, where LIDAR device 710 is implemented consistent with device 100 of Fig. 1) for a host vehicle (Fig. 7, vehicle 702), comprising: a laser emission unit (Fig. 1, transmitter 106) configured to generate at least one laser beam (¶¶ 35-36, transmitter 106 emits one or more light beams); a scanning unit configured to deflect the at least one laser beam toward a field of view of the LIDAR system (Fig. 1, scanning unit with optics 108 and scanning platform 116; ¶¶ 40 & 48, optics 108 employ deflecting mirrors to direct light towards the environment, where field of view is scanned through rotation of scanning platform 116; Figs. 4C & 4D, associated with rotating LIDAR scanning the environment; ¶¶ 96-98), wherein the scanning unit is further configured to cyclically scan the at least one laser beam over the field of view of the LIDAR system (¶¶ 97-99, cyclical scanning of 360º field of view at a frequency f ) during a plurality of frame capture events (¶¶ 98-99, scan event 442 of Fig. 4D occurring successively “fifteen times every second” having a “first point direction”), wherein each frame capture event corresponds to one complete scan cycle relative to the field of view of the LIDAR system (¶¶ 97-99, complete rotations provide a 360° FOV scan and the device returns to the same pointing direction of 442 after each period T = 1/ f , consistent with one full scan cycle); at least one processor (Fig. 7, controller 720; ¶¶ 122-124 & 142) programmed to: determine an actual frame capture progression for the LIDAR system (¶¶ 169-170, actual frame capture progression corresponds to measured phase in rotation cycle, i.e., “ measured_direction ” of Equation 4; ¶¶ 115-116) [1: and] an actual frame capture rate of the scanning unit (¶¶ 165-166, actual frame capture rate corresponds to measured rotation frequency, i.e., “ measured_frequency ” of Equation 2; ¶¶ 114-116); receive, from a location external to the LIDAR system (Fig. 7, external clock source 730), an indicator of a current external time (¶¶ 167-168, “ reference_time ” of Equation 3); determine an expected frame capture progression for the LIDAR system (¶¶ 167-168, “ target_direction ” of Equation 3) based on a target frame capture rate for the scanning unit (¶¶ 167-168, “ target_frequency ” of Equation 3) and based on the indicator of the current time (¶¶ 160 & 167-168, computes “ target_direction ” as a function of “ target_frequency ” and “ reference_time ,” which corresponds to the expected pointing direction/phase progression at the current external time); and adjust the actual frame capture rate of the scanning unit in response to a detected difference between the actual frame capture progression and the expected frame capture progression (¶¶ 169-170, “ phase_error ” based on difference between “ target_direction ” and “ measured_direction ”; ¶¶ 114, 124 & 171-173, rotation adjusted to correct for detected phase error, wherein correction of phase error for a continuously rotating platform necessarily entails a transient change in rotational frequency, i.e. , adjustment of actual frame capture rate, in order to speed up or slow down the rotation until the phase is aligned; see MPEP § 2112). Gassend does not disclose: (1) [determine an actual frame capture progression] “based on” [an actual frame capture rate of the scanning unit]. However, Migdal teaches the limitation in Col. 9:22-44 , where the pointing angle of the beam θ during scanning is determined based on the rotation rate of the scanning unit ω and time t . 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 the actual frame capture progression of Gassend such that it was determined based on actual frame capture rate as taught by Migdal , with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to reduce hardware and scan-time synchronization complexity, thereby yielding a LIDAR system with lower component and power/size requirements and simplified beam angle determination ( Migdal , Col. 3: 34-44 and 4:41-55 ) . Regarding claim 2 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1. The current combination does not teach: wherein the actual frame capture rate of the scanning unit is related to a clocking signal internal to the LIDAR system. However, Migdal further teaches in Col. 10:49-54 a clock signal associated with each full rotation of the scanner unit. 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 the actual frame capture rate of Gassend in view of Migdal such that it a clocking signal as further taught by Migdal , with a reasonable expectation of success, in order provide greater accuracy scan rotation and beam direction determination , yielding a LIDAR system with improved precision angular position determination ( Migdal , Col. 10 : 56 - 59 ). Regarding claim 3 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 2, and further teaches: wherein the clocking signal internal to the LIDAR system is an integer multiple of the actual frame capture rate of the scanning unit ( Migdal , Col. 10:49-54 , clock signal per full scanner rotation ) . Regarding claim 6 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1 , and further teaches: wherein the actual frame capture rate of the scanning unit is adjusted using frequency-shifting circuitry ( Fig. 1, controller 104 and actuators 118; ¶ 34 ) . Regarding claim 8 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1 . The current combination does not teach : wherein the expected frame capture progression is determined, at least in part, based on a LIDAR system scan initiation time . H owever , Migdal further teaches determining the rotation angle θ based on scan initiation time t = 0 in Col. 9:35-45 . 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 the expected frame capture progression of Gassend in view of Migdal such that it incorporated the scan initiation time as further taught by Migdal , with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to provide the initial phase condition of the beam angle for anchoring the determination of beam direction to a known initiation offset, thereby yielding a LIDAR system which provid es more accurate and reliable phase synchronization across scans and operating conditions ( Migdal , Col. 9 : 25 - 45 ). Regarding claim 9 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the expected frame capture progression is determined, at least in part, based on a previously sampled external time ( Gassend , ¶¶ 127, 152-154 & 168, external reference clock signal received with a frequency of 1 Hz, corresponding to previously sampled external time, used to adjust pointing direction/phase). Regarding claim 18 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the adjustment to the actual frame capture rate of the scanning unit results in synchronization of frame capture events between the LIDAR system and at least one other LIDAR system ( Gassend , ¶ 73, one or more LIDAR devices on common vehicle; ¶¶ 23-24, 27 & 106-110, adjustment of rotation for synchronizing pointing direction/phase of multiple lidar sensors). Regarding claim 19 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 18, and further teaches: wherein the LIDAR system and the at least one other LIDAR system are deployed on a common host vehicle ( Gassend , ¶ 73, one or more LIDAR devices on common vehicle; Fig. 3). Regarding claim 20 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the indicator of the current external time is received at a predetermined frequency ( Gassend , ¶ 127, received at a fixed, predetermined frequency of 1 Hz). Regarding claim 22 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 20, and further teaches: wherein the predetermined frequency is at least once per second ( Gassend , ¶ 127, once per second, 1 Hz). Regarding claim 23 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 20, and further teaches: wherein the predetermined frequency is at least once per five seconds ( Gassend , ¶ 127, once per second, 1 Hz). Regarding claim 24 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 20, and further teaches: wherein the predetermined frequency is at least once per ten seconds ( Gassend , ¶ 127, once per second, 1 Hz). Regarding claim 25 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1 , and further teaches: wherein the at least one processor is further programmed to receive an indicator of a baseline reference time ( Gassend , ¶ 127, “clock signal” at 1 Hz). Regarding claim 2 6 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 25 , and further teaches: wherein a scan initiation time for the LIDAR system is determined based on the received indicator of the baseline reference time ( Gassend , ¶¶ 24, 99-100 & 153-154, initialize LIDAR at t = 0 synchronized to clock signal) . Regarding claim 2 7 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 26 , and further teaches: wherein a difference between the scan initiation time and the baseline reference time corresponds to an integer multiple of frame capture events occurring at the target capture rate ( Gassend , ¶¶ 24, 99-100 , 127 & 153-154, difference between scan initiation time at t = 0 and the baseline reference time of 1 Hz is equal to 15 times frame capture event T ). Regarding claim 28 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the indicator of the current external time is received from a GPS unit ( Gassend , ¶¶ 127 & 147, GPS). Regarding claim 2 9 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the indicator of the current external time is received from a CPU associated with a vehicle on which the LIDAR system is deployed ( Gassend , ¶ 127, “ vehicles … may include a suitable sensor (not shown), such as GPS … configured to receive wireless signals 740 ”) . Regarding claim 30 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the indicator of the current external time is received from an external clock ( Gassend , Fig. 7, external clock source 730; ¶¶ 111-112 & 125). Regarding claim 31 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the indicator of the current external time is received from a wirelessly accessible communication network ( Gassend , Fig. 7, data network system 734; ¶¶ 128-129 & 148-149). Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gassend in view of Migdal further in view of Araki ( US5909300A ). Regarding claim 7 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, and further teaches : wherein the actual frame capture rate of the scanning unit is adjusted using […] a clocking signal internal to the LIDAR system ( Gassend , ¶ 154, “ calibrated internal clock to adjust the pointing direction ”) . However, Gassend in view of Migdal does not teach: [ actual frame capture rate of the scanning unit is adjusted using ] “ one or more multiplexing units configured to receive predetermined variants of ” [ a clocking signal ] . However, Araki teaches the limitation in Col. 5:15-21; 5:65-67; 6:1-20 , where predetermined clock signals are directed to a multiplexer for increasing or decreasing rotation speed of the scanning unit. 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 the LIDAR system of Gassend in view of Migdal with the teachings of Araki , with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to apply fine rotation frequency corrections and continuous phase synchronization for maintain ing scanner alignment and preserv ing operational integrity ( Araki , Col.1:15-20,60-62; Col. 6:25-30 ). Claim s 1 0 -12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gassend in view of Migdal further in view of Zuk (US20150116692A1) . Regarding claim 10 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, however does not teach : wherein if the actual frame capture progression is greater than the expected frame capture progression, the actual frame capture rate is adjusted downward. However, Zuk teaches the limitation in ¶ 38. 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 the LIDAR system of Gassend in view of Migdal with the teachings of Zuk , with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maintain a synchronized angular phase to the reference timing and correct for the phase error, thereby yielding a lidar system with reduced measurement noise/variation and greater signal integrity ( Zuk , ¶¶ 35, 38 & 40-41) . Regarding claim 1 1 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, however does not teach: wherein if the actual frame capture progression is less than the expected frame capture progression, the actual frame capture rate is adjusted upward. However, Zuk teaches the limitation in ¶ 38. 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 the LIDAR system of Gassend in view of Migdal with the teachings of Zuk , with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maintain a synchronized angular phase to the reference timing and correct for the phase error, thereby yielding a lidar system with reduced measurement noise/variation and greater signal integrity ( Zuk , ¶¶ 35, 38 & 40-41). Regarding claim 1 2 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, however does not teach: wherein the adjustment to the actual frame capture rate results in operation of the scanning unit at an adjusted frame capture rate different from the actual frame capture rate. However, Zuk teaches the limitation in ¶ 38. 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 the LIDAR system of Gassend in view of Migdal with the teachings of Zuk , with a reasonable expectation of success, in order to maintain a synchronized angular phase to the reference timing and correct for the phase error, thereby yielding a lidar system with reduced measurement noise/variation and greater signal integrity ( Zuk , ¶¶ 35, 38 & 40-41). Claims 13-14, 1 7 and 21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gassend in view of Migdal further in view of Zuk further in view of Templeton (US20190086931A1) . Regarding claim 1 3 , Gassend in view of Migdal and Zuk teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 12, however does not teach: wherein the scanning unit is operated at the adjusted frame capture rate over an adjustment time interval . Templeton teaches in ¶¶ 160 & 163-165 , a time interval between when rotation frequency ω 0 is reduced to ω low and then returned back to ω 0 . 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 the LIDAR system of Gassend in view of Migdal and Zuk with the teachings of Templeton since such a modification would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions and would have merely involved combining familiar elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR rationale A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adopting the teachings of Templeton in combination with the LIDAR system of Gassend in view of Migdal and Zuk would provide for a regulated transition period for the alignment of phase , thereby yielding in a LIDAR system with greater stability and scan quality. This update represents a known design improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success. Regarding claim 1 4 , Gassend in view of Migdal , Zuk and Templeton teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1 3 , and further teaches : wherein the adjustment time interval corresponds to less than one frame capture cycle ( Templeton , Fig 9A & ¶¶ 89, 159- 160 & 165 , adjustment time interval limited within full 360º scan cycle ) . Regarding claim 1 7 , Gassend in view of Migdal, Zuk and Templeton teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 13, and further teaches: wherein at an end of the adjustment time interval, the scanning unit is operated at a steady state frame capture rate calculated to result in an actual frame capture rate matching the target frame capture rate ( Gassend , ¶¶ 171-173, phase/frequency errors corrected to zero, therefore measured frequency , corresponding to actual frame capture rate , equals target frequency, corresponding to target frame capture rate ) . Regarding claim 21 , Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 20, and further teaches: wherein the predetermined frequency is at least once per [fifteen frame capture s] ( Gassend , ¶¶ 99 & 127, predetermined frequency at 1 Hz corresponding to 15 frame capture s). However, Gassend in view of Migdal does not teach a 1 Hz “ frame capture . ” Templeton teaches the limitation in ¶¶ 43-46 & 99. 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 the LIDAR system of Gassend in view of Migdal and Zuk with the teachings of Templeton since such a modification would have been a predictable use of prior art elements according to their established functions and would have merely involved combining familiar elements according to known methods to yield predictable results (KSR rationale A). One of ordinary skill in the art would have recognized that adopting the teachings of Templeton in combination with the LIDAR system of Gassend in view of Migdal and Zuk would provide for higher scan density at constant pulse rate, thereby yielding in a LIDAR system with increased angular resolution and measurement fidelity . This update represents a known design improvement and would have been pursued by the skilled artisan with a reasonable expectation of success. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 4 - 5 and 16 - 17 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but wou ld be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. A statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter are as follows. Regarding claim 4, Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the actual frame capture progression is determined over a time period from a LIDAR system scan initiation time […] (Migdal, Col. 9:10-44, where the pointing angle of the beam θ during scanning is determined based on the rotation rate of the scanning unit ω and scan initiation time t = 0 to the time elapsed ). However, neither Gassend nor Migdal teach : [ the actual frame capture progression is determined over a time period from a scan initiation time ] “to the current external time.” That is, using “ the current external time” which is “ receive[d] from a location external to the LIDAR system” for determining both “ actual frame capture progression ” and “ expected frame capture progression ” wherein their difference is used to “ adjust the actual frame capture rate of the scanning unit ” ( in view of claim 1 ). Neither Araki , Zuk nor Templeton remedies the deficiencies of Gassend in view of Migdal . Regarding claim 5, Gassend in view of Migdal teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 1, and further teaches: wherein the actual frame capture progression is determined over a time period […] (Migdal, Col. 9:10-44, where the pointing angle of the beam θ during scanning is determined based on the rotation rate of the scanning unit ω and scan initiation time t = 0 to the time elapsed ). However, neither Gassend nor Migdal teach : [ the actual frame capture progression is determined over a time period ] “from a previously sampled external time to the current external time.” That is, using “ the current external time” which is “ receive[d] from a location external to the LIDAR system” for determining both “ actual frame capture progression ” and “ expected frame capture progression ” wherein their difference is used to “ adjust the actual frame capture rate of the scanning unit ” ( in view of claim 1 ). Neither Araki , Zuk nor Templeton remedies the deficiencies of Gassend in view of Migdal . Regarding claim 1 5 , Gassend in view of Migdal, Zuk and Templeton teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 13, however does not teach : “ wherein the adjustment time interval corresponds to more than one frame capture cycle, but less than two frame capture cycles . ” Araki fail to remed y the deficiencies. Regarding claim 1 6 , Gassend in view of Migdal, Zuk and Templeton teaches the LIDAR system according to claim 13, however does not teach: “ wherein the adjustment time interval is calculated based on the difference between the actual frame capture progression and the expected frame capture progression and further based on a difference between the adjusted frame capture rate and the actual frame capture rate. ” Araki fail to remed y the deficiencies. The remaining prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure, as noted in the attached PTO 892, include: Juelsgaard (US20200041622A1) discloses receiving an external timestamp and determining beam scanning position based on the timestamp . However, Juelsgaard does not disclose determining the “ expected frame capture progression ” and “ actual frame capture progression ” based on the external timestamp, and further silent to adjusting “ the actual frame capture rate of the scanning unit ” based on their difference, as required by claims 4-5. Furthermore, Juelsgaard is silent as to the “ adjustment time interval ” of claims 15-16. Lundquist ( US20210255323A1 ) discloses the tailored driving of scanner rotation rate via a motor, and further describes synchronizing independently driven rotation components to the same rotation frequency and phase. However, Lundquist remains silent as to the “ current external time” of claims 4-5 and “ adjustment time interval ” of claims 15-16 . Slobodyanyuk ( US20170082737A1 ) discloses receiving an external clock signal and synchronizing an internal system clock to schedule beam emissions, including phase and time drift controls where synchronization includes phase locking the local oscillator to the received external signal. However, Slobodyanyuk remains silent to determining the “ expected frame capture progression ” and “ actual frame capture progression ” based on the external clock signal as required by claims 4-5, and is further silent to the “ adjustment time interval ” of claims 15-16. In sum, the cited prior art lacks any teaching or motivation that would lead a person of ordinary skill in the art to implement the features of claims 4 - 5 and 15 - 16 , thereby failing to render the claimed invention anticipated or obvious. Accordingly, claims 4 - 5 and 15 - 16 would be allowable if rewritten in independent form, including all limitations of its base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT ZHENGQING QI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-1078 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:00 AM - 5:00 PM ET . 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT YUQING XIAO can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-270-3603 . 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. /ZHENGQING QI/ Examiner, Art Unit 3645