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. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the brightline welding in Claim 2 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. In addition to Replacement Sheets containing the corrected drawing figure(s), applicant is required to submit a marked-up copy of each Replacement Sheet including annotations indicating the changes made to the previous version. The marked-up copy must be clearly labeled as “Annotated Sheets” and must be presented in the amendment or remarks section that explains the change(s) to the drawings. See 37 CFR 1.121(d)(1). Failure to timely submit the proposed drawing and marked-up copy will result in the abandonment of the application. Claim Objections Claim 9 objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 9 recites “customized programmed” this should be –programmed--. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. This application includes one or more claim limitations that do not use the word “means,” but are nonetheless being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, because the claim limitation(s) uses a generic placeholder that is coupled with functional language without reciting sufficient structure to perform the recited function and the generic placeholder is not preceded by a structural modifier. Such claim limitation(s) is/are: Control device in claims 1, 9-10 and 12-18 . The specifications do not cite any particular structure. For examination purposes, “ control device ” will be interpreted as any structure capable of control . Vision device in claims 9 and 13-19 . The specifications do not cite any particular structure. For examination purposes, “ vision device ” will be interpreted as any structure capable of vision . Positioning device in claim s 5-10 and 19 . The specifications do not cite any particular structure. The specification cites that the positioning device is a vision device, par. 18, which also does not have any particular structure. For examination purposes, “ positioning device ” will be interpreted as any structure capable of positioning or vision . Because this/these claim limitation(s) is/are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, it/they is/are being interpreted to cover the corresponding structure described in the specification as performing the claimed function, and equivalents thereof. If applicant does not intend to have this/these limitation(s) interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, applicant may: (1) amend the claim limitation(s) to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph (e.g., by reciting sufficient structure to perform the claimed function); or (2) present a sufficient showing that the claim limitation(s) recite(s) sufficient structure to perform the claimed function so as to avoid it/them being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of 35 U.S.C. 112(a): (a) IN GENERAL.—The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor or joint inventor of carrying out the invention. The following is a quotation of the first paragraph of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112: The specification shall contain a written description of the invention, and of the manner and process of making and using it, in such full, clear, concise, and exact terms as to enable any person skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and use the same, and shall set forth the best mode contemplated by the inventor of carrying out his invention. Claim s 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), first paragraph, as failing to comply with the enablement requirement. The claim(s) contains subject matter which was not described in the specification in such a way as to enable one skilled in the art to which it pertains, or with which it is most nearly connected, to make and/or use the invention. Regarding claims 1, 9-10 and 12-18 further recites the limitations control device . The term “ device ” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a responding structure or technique by which the device performs positioning . A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of control . When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim Regarding claim s 5-10 and 19 , claim s 5-10 and 19 further recites the limitations positioning device . The term “ device ” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a responding structure or technique by which the device performs positioning . A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of positioning . When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim . Regarding claim s 9 and 13-19 , claim s 9 and 13-19 further recites the limitations vision device . The term “ device ” invokes a claim interpretation governed under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) (pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph), which requires a review of the specification to determine the appropriate structure, material or act to carry out the claimed limitation. However, the specification as originally filed, fails to describe a responding structure or technique by which the device performs positioning . A mere restatement of the function does not suffice as a statement of structure. Thus, it does not appear that applicant had possession of the claimed invention because the specification does not disclose a structure which is capable of vision . When a description of the structure, material or act is not provided or is not sufficient to perform the entire claimed function, or no association between the structure and the claimed function can be found in the specification, the written description fails to clearly define the boundaries of the claim The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-20 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim limitation “ control device,” “ vision device , ” and “positioning device” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function. “ Control device ” . The structure of the control device is not described in the specification and so, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, “ control device ” will be interpreted as any structure capable of control . “ Vision device” . The structure of the vision device is not described in the specification and so, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, “ vision device ” will be interpreted as any structure capable of vision . “ Positioning device” . The structure of the positioning device is not described in the specification and the specification states that it may be a vision device (par. 18) which also does not describe the structure, and so, one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. For examination purposes, “ positioning device ” will be interpreted as any structure capable of positioning or vision . 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim(s) 1, 3, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Nakamura (JPH08315790) . Claim 1. Nakamura discloses a laser welding system (laser welding, par. 9) for sealing welding a cell top cover (welding cover onto a rectangular case, par. 8, Fig. 3) , the laser welding system comprising: a laser emitting device (7, Fig. 2) for generating a scanning welding laser beam (laser beam, Fig. 3) to be irradiated to a portion of the cell top cover to be welded (beam irradiates the top portion of the cover 2, Fig. 3) ; and a control device for controlling the laser emitting device to perform continuous scanning sealing welding on the cell top cover (controller 8 controls the laser oscillator, par. 30) , wherein the laser welding system is configured to complete the sealing welding of the cell top cover at only one work station (complete welding of the cover occurs at the laser welding machine, par. 30; where broadest reasonable interpretation of “complete the sealing welding” includes completing the weld at a single work station) . Claim 3. Nakamura discloses the laser welding system according to claim 1, wherein, the laser welding system is configured to continuously perform the sealing welding in a closed loop on the cell top cover; and/or the laser welding system is configured to weld at a scanning welding speed of up to 10,000 mm/s (scanning speed is 10 mm/s, par. 26) . Claim 20. Nakamura discloses a method for sealing welding a cell top cover (laser welding a cover of a rectangular case, par. 8-9) , wherein the method is performed by using the laser welding system according to claim 1 to achieve continuous scanning sealing welding of the cell top cover (continuous weld around the cover, Fig. 8) . 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. Claim(s) 2 and 4 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Haug ( US 20190262942 A1 ) Claim 2. Nakamura does not disclose the laser welding system according to claim 1, wherein the laser emitting device is configured to operate based on a brightline welding technology. Haug discloses a laser welding device wherein the laser fiber may be a two-in-one fiber (Fig. 6). 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 Nakamura to incorporate the teachings of Haug and use a two-in-one fiber. Doing so would have the benefit of reducing turbulence in the weld and therefore reduce weld spatters (par. 62, Haug ) Claim 4. Nakamura in view of Haug discloses the laser welding system according to claim 2, wherein, the laser welding system is configured to continuously perform the sealing welding in a closed loop on the cell top cover; and/or the laser welding system is configured to weld at a scanning welding speed of up to 10,000 mm/s (scanning speed is 10 mm/s, par. 26) . Claim(s) 6, 8, 14, and 16 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura in view Haug as applied to claim 2 above, and further in view of Ishida (US 20120048838 A1) Claim 6. Nakamura in view of Haug does not disclose the laser welding system according to claim 2, further comprising one or more of the following: a positioning device for pre-positioning before the sealing welding; an in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device for monitoring a depth of a weld pool during the continuous scanning sealing welding; or a post-welding surface quality monitoring device for monitoring a quality of a welded surface. Ishida discloses a laser welding apparatus wherein an optical monitor unit 3 (Fig. 1) monitors images of the weld material and determines the position of the bead and can examine the post-weld (par. 114). 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 Nakamura to incorporate the teachings of Ishida and monitor the weld and examine the post-weld . Doing so would have the benefit of identifying if a weld defect occurred (par. 123 , Ishida ). Claim 8. Nakamura in view of Haug does not disclose the laser welding system according to claim 4, further comprising one or more of the following: a positioning device for pre-positioning before the sealing welding; an in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device for monitoring a depth of a weld pool during the continuous scanning sealing welding; or a post-welding surface quality monitoring device for monitoring a quality of -a welded surface. Ishida discloses a laser welding apparatus wherein an optical monitor unit 3 (Fig. 1) monitors images of the weld material and determines the position of the bead and can examine the post-weld (par. 114). 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 Nakamura to incorporate the teachings of Ishida and monitor the weld and examine the post-weld . Doing so would have the benefit of identifying if a weld defect occurred (par. 123 , Ishida ). Claim 14. Nakamura in view of Haug and Ishida discloses the laser welding system according to claim 6, wherein, the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is configured to operate based on optical coherence tomography technology; and/or the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is communicatively connected to the control device; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured to determine whether the cell top cover is a qualified product based on a comparison result with a predetermined surface quality; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured as a second vision device (camera 3B, par. 115, Fig. 9A, Ishida) ; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is communicatively connected to the control device. Claim 16. Nakamura in view of Haug and Ishida discloses the laser welding system according to claim 8, wherein, the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is configured to operate based on optical coherence tomography technology; and/or the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is communicatively connected to the control device; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured to determine whether the cell top cover is a qualified product based on a comparison result with a predetermined surface quality; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured as a second vision device (camera 3B, par. 115, Fig. 9A, Ishida) ; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is communicatively connected to the control device. Claim(s) 5, 7, 9-1 3, 15, and 17-19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Nakamura as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Ishida (US 20120048838 A1) Claim 5. Nakamura does not disclose the laser welding system according to claim 1, further comprising one or more of the following: a positioning device for pre-positioning before the sealing welding; an in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device for monitoring a depth of a weld pool during the continuous scanning sealing welding; or a post-welding surface quality monitoring device for monitoring a quality of a welded surface. Ishida discloses a laser welding apparatus wherein an optical monitor unit 3 (Fig. 1) monitors images of the weld material and determines the position of the bead and can examine the post-weld (par. 114). 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 Nakamura to incorporate the teachings of Ishida and monitor the weld and examine the post-weld . Doing so would have the benefit of identifying if a weld defect occurred (par. 123 , Ishida ). Claim 7. Nakamura discloses the laser welding system according to claim 3, further comprising one or more of the following: a positioning device for pre-positioning before the sealing welding; an in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device for monitoring a depth of a weld pool during the continuous scanning sealing welding; or a post-welding surface quality monitoring device for monitoring a quality of a welded surface. Ishida discloses a laser welding apparatus wherein an optical monitor unit 3 (Fig. 1) monitors images of the weld material and determines the position of the bead and can examine the post-weld (par. 114). 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 Nakamura to incorporate the teachings of Ishida and monitor the weld and examine the post-weld . Doing so would have the benefit of identifying if a weld defect occurred (par. 123 , Ishida ). Claim 9. Nakamura in view of Ishida discloses the laser welding system according to claim 5, wherein, the positioning device is configured as a first vision device (monitor unit 3 has a camera, Fig. 9A, Ishida) ; and/or the positioning device is configured to be customized programmed based on a size and a configuration of a sample; and/or the positioning device is communicatively connected to the control device; and/or the positioning device is communicatively connected to the laser emitting device. Claim 10. Nakamura in view of Ishida discloses the laser welding system according to claim 9, wherein, the positioning device is configured to obtain characteristic data of the cell top cover related to a subsequent continuous scanning sealing welding and transmit the characteristic data to the control device (monitor unit 3 images and calculates the shape and position of the bead region in the weld, par. 15 and transmit the data to the determination unit, Fig. 1, Ishida ) , and the control device is configured to control the laser emitting device and/or a worktable for fixing the cell top cover based on the characteristic data (XY table and laser is controlled by the controller, par. 30) . Claim 11. Nakamura in view of Ishida discloses the laser welding system according to claim 10, wherein, the characteristic data comprises at least one of a geometric characteristic of the cell top cover ( monitor unit 3 images and calculates the shape and position of the bead region in the weld, par. 15, Ishida ) , a position characteristic of the cell top cover, or a gap characteristic of the portion of the cell top cover to be welded; and/or the laser welding system is configured to perform the subsequent continuous scanning sealing welding if the characteristic data satisfies a predetermined condition, and to terminate the continuous scanning sealing welding, or continue performing the subsequent continuous scanning sealing welding by adjusting the cell top cover to satisfy the predetermined condition, if the characteristic data does not satisfy the predetermined condition. Claim 12. Nakamura in view of Ishida discloses the laser welding system according to claim 11, wherein, the laser welding system is configured to adjust characteristics of the laser beam emitted by the laser emitting device based on a gap width characteristic and/or a gap position characteristic of the portion of the cell top cover to be welded; and/or the laser emitting device has a controller (controller 8 controls the laser oscillator, par. 30) or the control device is integrated into the laser emitting device; and/or the laser emitting device is configured as a scanning galvanometer. Claim 13. Nakamura in view of Ishida discloses the laser welding system according to claim 5, wherein, the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is configured to operate based on optical coherence tomography technology; and/or the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is communicatively connected to the control device; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured to determine whether the cell top cover is a qualified product based on a comparison result with a predetermined surface quality; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured as a second vision device (camera 3B, par. 115, Fig. 9A, Ishida) ; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is communicatively connected to the control device. Claim 15. Nakamura in view of Ishida discloses the laser welding system according to claim 7, wherein, the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is configured to operate based on optical coherence tomography technology; and/or the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is communicatively connected to the control device; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured to determine whether the cell top cover is a qualified product based on a comparison result with a predetermined surface quality; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured as a second vision device (camera 3B, par. 115, Fig. 9A, Ishida) ; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is communicatively connected to the control device. Claim 17. Nakamura in view of Ishida discloses the laser welding system according to claim 9, wherein, the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is configured to operate based on optical coherence tomography technology; and/or the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is communicatively connected to the control device; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured to determine whether the cell top cover is a qualified product based on a comparison result with a predetermined surface quality; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured as a second vision device (camera 3B, par. 115, Fig. 9A, Ishida) ; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is communicatively connected to the control device. Claim 18. Nakamura in view of Ishida discloses the laser welding system according to claim 10, wherein, the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is configured to operate based on optical coherence tomography technology; and/or the in-welding weld pool depth monitoring device is communicatively connected to the control device; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured to determine whether the cell top cover is a qualified product based on a comparison result with a predetermined surface quality; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is configured as a second vision device (camera 3B, par. 115, Fig. 9A, Ishida) ; and/or the post-welding surface quality monitoring device is communicatively connected to the control device. Claim 19. Nakamura in view of Ishida discloses t he laser welding system according to claim 13, wherein, the positioning device and the post-welding surface quality monitoring device are configured as a common vision device (monitoring unit 3 determines the position of the weld bead and can observe the post-weld, Fig. 9A, Ishida) . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SIMPSON A CHEN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-6422 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Steven Crabb can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-5095 . 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. /SIMPSON A CHEN/ Examiner, Art Unit 3761 /ELIZABETH M KERR/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3761