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 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. 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. Such claim limitation(s) and the corresponding structure described in the specification is/are: “programmable electronic processing unit” (claim 1) – a programmable logic controller PLC (Published Application, ¶ [0037]). 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 Objections Claim 1 is objected to for the following: It refers to the same element with different terminology such as, “a programmable electronic processing unit (43)” (¶ 3), “the programmable unit (43)” (¶ 4 and ¶ 5), and “the electronic unit (43)” (¶ 6). For clarity, consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims. It refers to the same element with different terminology such as, “ means capable of generating a decrease in the pressure inside the inspection chamber” (¶ 2) and “said pressure-decreasing means” (¶ 8). For clarity, consistent terminology should be used throughout the claims. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 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 are 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 1 is indefinite for the following reasons: It is unclear if “a sample to be examined” (l. 3) refers to one of the previously recited “flexible packages” (l. 1). It is unclear if the step, “iv. possibly repeating the steps ii) and iii) with the same or different pressure values (italics added)” (third from last paragraph) is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. The language “said pressure variations” (section v, ll. 2-3) lacks antecedent basis in the claim. It is not known whether “said variation” (last line) refers to a variation of at least one geometric parameter (section v, l l . 1 -2 ) or of pressure variations (section v, ll. 2-3). Claim 2 is indefinite because “the package” (last line) lacks antecedent basis in the claim and it is unclear if Applicant intends to refer to the previously recited “a sample ( Cx )” (claim 1, ¶ 4) or one of “flexible packages” (claim 1, l. 1). Claim 3 is indefinite because it is unclear if the limitation “ preferably defined in an interchangeable tray (italics added)” (ll. 2-3) is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 5 is indefinite because it recites that “the transducer is provided with a small plate (31)” (ll. 1-2) while claim 4 recites “a linear position transducer having a probe” (ll. 2-3) . The language treats the small plate and the probe as distinct elements however, Applicant’s disclosure describes the measuring unit having an appendix “in the form of a small plate, having the function of a probe” (¶ [0033]). Claim 9 is indefinite because it is unclear if the language, “and possibly a collaborative robot (italics added)” (ll. 3-4) is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. Claim 10 is indefinite because “said seat” (last line) lacks antecedent basis in the claims. It is noted that a se at is only previously recited in claim 3 , from which claim 10 does not depend. Claim 12 is indefinite because “the instrumentation” (l. 4) lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear what element is being referred to. Claim 1 3 is indefinite for the following reasons: It is unclear if “a sample to be examined” (l. 4) refers to one of the previously recited “flexible packages” (l. 1). It is unclear if the language , “ possibly repeating the steps ii) and iii) with the same or different pressure values (italics added)” ( section iv ) is (a) merely exemplary of the remainder of the claim, and therefore not required, or (b) a required feature of the claims. It is not known whether “said variation” (last line) refers to a variation of at least one geometric parameter (section v, l l . 1 -2 ) or of pressure variations (section v, ll. 2-3). Claim 14 is indefinite because “the package sample” (ll. 3-4) lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear whether the language refers to the previously recited “sample” (l. 2). It is noted that claim 15 also recites “the package sample” (last paragraph, l. 2) . Claim 15 is indefinite because “said comparison” (l. 2) lacks antecedent basis in the claims. It is unclear whether the language refers to the previously recited “step of comparing” in claim 14 . (l. 3) but for the purpose of applying prior art, is treated as such. Claim 16 is indefinite because “the product” (last line) lacks antecedent basis in the claim and it is unclear whether the term refers to the previously recited “sample” (l. 2) or “package” (l. 3), or neither. Claim 1 8 is indefinite for the following reasons: The term “the package sample” (l. 2) lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear whether it refers to the “sample” previously recited in claim 13 (l. 4). The term “the inspection apparatus” (last line) lacks antecedent basis in the claims. Claim 19 is indefinite for the following reasons: The term “said picking step” (l. 2) lacks antecedent basis in the claims. It is noted that a “step of picking” (claim 18, l. 2) is previously recited in claim 18 , from which claim 19 does not depend. The terms “the product package” (ll. 2-3) and “the tested product sample” (l. 4) lacks antecedent basis in the claims and it is unclear whether the terms refer to the same element and/or the previously recited “sample” (claim 1, l. 3). Claim 20 is indefinite because “the wall of the package sample” (l. 3) lacks antecedent basis in the claims as neither a wall nor package sample have been previously recited. It is noted that a “sample” is previously recited in claim 13 (l. 4). Claims 4 , 6-8 , 11 , and 17 are indefinite because of their dependence from claims 1 and 13 . 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. Claim(s) 1-3 and 12-15 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by Maruyama et al. (US 5,105,654). Regarding claim 1 , Maruyama et al. discloses an apparatus (fig. 1) for inspecting flexible packages (2), comprising: an inspection chamber (1) having a closeable opening ( c. 3, ll. 49-50 ) for the passage of a sample (2) to be examined and associatable with means ( 6 ) capable of generating a decrease in the pressure inside the inspection chamber (chamber 1 is connected to vacuum pump 6 to decrease pressure inside chamber 1; c. 3, ll. 53-54 ); a programmable electronic processing unit (10); a measuring unit ( 9 ), controlled by the programmable unit (10), for measuring at least one geometric parameter of a sample (2) received in the inspection chamber ( displacement sensor 9 , controlled by control device 10, measures a distance to a n upper surface of container 2, which is a geometric parameter, in chamber 1; c. 3, l. 62 – c. 4, l. 3 ); a pressure sensor unit ( 7, 11 ), comprising at least one pressure sensor ( 7 ), associated with the programmable unit (10) and capable of measuring the pressure inside the inspection chamber ( c. 3, l. 62 – c. 4, l. 3 ); wherein the electronic unit ( 10 ) is programmed to make the apparatus (fig. 1) perform the steps of: i . determining at least one geometric parameter of the sample ( 2 ) by means of said measuring unit ( 9 ) when a starting pressure P 1 (before time t 1 ) is established in the inspection chamber ( control device 10 causes determination of an expansion height of container 2 using displacement sensor 9 at a first pressure of chamber 1 along curve A, before time t 1 ) ; fig. 2 and c. 4, ll. 41-58 ); ii. causing, by means of said pressure-decreasing means (6) , a decrease in the pressure inside the inspection chamber ( 1 ) until a predetermined pressure value P 2 < P 1 is reached by means of a vacuum pumping unit (control device 10 causes vacuum pump 6 to decrease the pressure inside chamber 1 until a predetermined vacuum pressure is reached, at time t 3 ; c. 4, ll. 17-20) ; iii. causing an increase in the pressure inside the inspection chamber ( 1 ) until the starting pressure value P 1 is reached again (control device 10 causes an increase in pressure inside chamber 1 until the first pressure is reached again; fig. 2 and c. 4, ll. 54-58 ) ; iv. possibly repeating the steps ii) and iii) with the same or different pressure values (the step of repeating steps ii) and iii) is not required because it is followed by the term “possibly”) ; v. determining, by means of said measuring unit (9) , the variation, if any, of said at least one geometric parameter (expansion height) of the sample ( 2 ) as a result of said pressure variations (control device 10 uses displacement sensor 9 to determine an expansion height of an upper surface of container 2 resulting from changes in pressure variations as shown in curves B and C; fig. 2) ; vi. generating a signal indicative of said variation, if any (control device 10 generates a signal indicating a variation in height of an upper surface of container 2, if any; c. 4, ll. 3-6 and 47-53) . Regarding claim 13 , Maruyama et al. discloses a method for inspecting flexible packages (2), comprising the steps of: providing an inspection chamber (1) having a closeable opening ( c. 3, ll. 49-50 ) for the passage of a sample ( 2 ) to be examined and associatable with means (6) capable of creating a decrease in the pressure inside the inspection chamber (chamber 1 is connected to vacuum pump 6 to decrease pressure inside chamber 1; c. 3, ll. 53-54) ; providing a programmable electronic processing unit ( 10 ); providing a measuring unit (9) , controlled by the programmable unit ( 10 ), for measuring at least one geometric parameter of a sample ( 2 ) received in the inspection chamber ( displacement sensor 9, controlled by control device 10, measures a distance to an upper surface of container 2, which is a geometric parameter, in chamber 1; c. 3, l. 62 – c. 4, l. 3 ); providing a pressure sensor unit (7, 11) , comprising at least one pressure sensor (7), associated with the programmable unit (10) and capable of measuring the pressure inside the inspection chamber ( c. 3, l. 62 – c. 4, l. 3 ); wherein said method comprises the steps of: i . determining at least one geometric parameter of the sample (2) by means of said measuring unit (9) when a starting pressure P 1 (before time t 1 ) is established in the inspection chamber (control device 10 causes determination of an expansion height of container 2 using displacement sensor 9 at a first pressure of chamber 1 along curve A, before time t 1 ); ii. causing, by means of said pressure-decreasing means (6), a decrease in the pressure inside the inspection chamber (1) until a predetermined pressure value P 2 < P 1 is reached (control device 10 causes vacuum pump 6 to decrease the pressure inside chamber 1 until a predetermined vacuum pressure is reached, at time t 3 ; c. 4, ll. 17-20) ; iii. causing an increase in the pressure inside the inspection chamber (1) until the starting pressure value P 1 is reached again (control device 10 causes an increase in pressure inside chamber 1 until the first pressure is reached again; fig. 2 and c. 4, ll. 54-58) ; iv. possibly repeating the steps ii) and iii) with the same or different pressure values (the step of repeating steps ii) and iii) is not required because it is followed by the term “possibly”) ; v. determining, by means of said measuring unit (9), the variation, if any, of said at least one geometric parameter (expansion height) of the sample (2) as a result of said pressure variations (control device 10 uses displacement sensor 9 to determine an expansion height of an upper surface of container 2 resulting from changes in pressure variations as shown in curves B and C; fig. 2) ; vi. generating a signal indicative of said variation (control device 10 generates a signal indicating a variation in height of an upper surface of container 2; c. 4, ll. 3-6 and 47-53) . Regarding claim s 2 and 1 4 , Maruyama et al. discloses wherein said electronic unit (10) is programmed to make the apparatus perform an inspection cycle comprising a sequence of pressure variations (a sequence of changes in pressure of chamber 1 are inspection cycles; see curve A in fig. 2) inside the inspection chamber (1) and of measurements of the corresponding variation of at least one geometric parameter (expansion height) of the sample (2), the measurements (curves B, C, and D; fig. 2) obtained being compared with reference values (fig. 2) in order to generate a signal indicative of the presence or absence of a defect in the package (control device 10 performs an inspection cycle comprising a sequence of pressure changes and of measurements of changes in expansion height of container 2 over time, the measurements of changes in expansion height are compared with reference values to generate a signal indicate of a presence or absence of a leak in container 2; c. 4, l. 61 – c. 5, l. 22); wherein the sample (2) is subjected to a sequence of inspection cycles (a sequence of changes in pressure of chamber 1 are inspection cycles; see curve A in fig. 2), and wherein there is provided a step of comparing the curves (B, C, and D; fig. 2) indicative of the variation of a geometric parameter (expansion height) of the package sample (2), upon variation of the pressure (curves B, C, and D are indicative of variation in expansion height for the presence and/or degree of leakage in container 2; c. 4, ll. 47-53 and c. 5, ll. 15-22) . Regarding claim 3 , Maruyama et al. discloses wherein the measuring unit (9) comprises a seat (surface of chamber section 1a which supports container 2; fig. 1) provided in said inspection chamber (13) and adapted to house a package sample (2), said seat (1a) being preferably defined in an interchangeable tray (chamber section 1a is at least interchangeable with other units of chamber section 1a; fig. 1). Regarding claim 12 , Maruyama et al. discloses wherein the measuring unit (9) for measuring at least one geometric parameter of a sample (2) received in the inspection chamber (1) and the pressure sensor unit (7) are in communication with said chamber (1), whereby the pressure inside the instrumentation is equal to the pressure within the inspection chamber (1), thus preventing pressure differences from altering the accuracy of measurement (displacement sensor 9 and pressure sensor 7 are in communication with chamber 1 whereby a sensed pressure is equal to the pressure within chamber 1; fig. 1). Regarding claim 15 , Maruyama et al. discloses wherein said comparison takes place in conjunction with or as an alternative to one of the following steps: the angular coefficient of the straight line (R) connecting the peaks of the curve indicative of the height variation of the package, with a predetermined threshold; the number of said peaks and the number of times in which a same straight line (R) intersects said peaks; the angular coefficient of the straight line (R 1 , R 2 , R 3 ) whose equation corresponds to the linear regression of the points forming the plateaus of said curve, with a predetermined threshold; the distance dy of ordinates between the straight lines (R′) and (R″) passing through the last point of a plateau and the first point of the subsequent plateau, with zero; the distance dy of ordinates between the straight lines ( R 1 , R 2 , R 3 ) passing through the first point of the plateau generated by the measurements under constant pressure at lower pressure threshold and the first point of the plateau generated by the measurements under constant pressure at higher pressure, with zero; the distance of ordinates between the last point or “knee” of the plateaus generated by the measurements under constant pressure with lower pressure and the straight line formerly defined, with zero; the correlation between the curve (B, C, and D; fig. 2) indicative of the variation of a geometric parameter (expansion height) of the package sample (2) and the curve (A) indicative of the pressure variation inside the inspection chamber (1) , with a predetermined correlation threshold (a step of comparing curves B, C, or D is performed in conjunction with a step of correlating a measurement curve, e.g. B, C, or D, from displacement sensor 9 indicative of a variation in expansion height of container 2, with curve A, indicative of the pressure variation inside chamber 1 with some predetermined correlation threshold to determine whether a leak is present; c. 4, ll. 41-53) . 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. Claim(s) 4-7, 11, 16, 17, and 20 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (US 5,105,654) in view of Eliasson (US 7,614,282 B2) . Regarding claims 4 -7 , Maruyama et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claims 1 and 3 . Maruyama et al. is silent on the measuring unit including a probe. Eliasson teaches an apparatus (fig. 3) for inspecting flexible package samples (2) comprising a measuring unit (20-23 and 25-27) for measuring at least one geometric parameter of a sample (2) received in an inspection chamber (optical sensors 26 and 27 measure a movement of plate 25 indicating a change in height of pillow pack 2, received in vacuum chamber 1; c. 5, ll. 43-49); a seat (surface of base 14; figs. 1-3) provided in said inspection chamber (1) and adapted to house a package sample (2); wherein the measuring unit (20-23 and 25-27) further comprises a linear position transducer (22, 25) having a probe (25) movable relative to a seat (surface of base 14; figs. 1-3) and capable of taking a distal configuration and a proximal configuration with respect to said seat (plate 25 is movable relative to an upper surface of base 14 and is capable of taking distal and proximal, raised and lowered, configurations with respect to base 14; fig. 3); wherein the transducer (25) is provided with a small plate (plate 25 is a small plate) extending in a plane substantially parallel to the base of the seat ( 14 ) intended to receive and support the sample ( plate 25 extends at least in a horizonal plane which is substantially parallel to the seat of base 14 intended to receive pillow pack 2; fig. 3 ) ; wherein the small plate (25) has a surface having a geometric shape complementary to that of the seat (14) for the package to be tested (2), and an extension substantially comparable to that of the seat (plate 25 has a flat surface which is complementary to a flat upper surface of base 14 and has an extension comparable to that of the upper surface of base 14 which supports pillow pack 2; fig. 3); wherein the measuring unit (20-23 and 25-27) comprises at least one optical sensor (26, 27) capable of generating a signal indicative of at least one geometric parameter of the package sample (optical sensors 26 and 27 generate a signal indicative of a change in height of pillow pack 2, by measuring movement of plate 25; c. 5, ll. 43-49). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Maruyama et al. with the probe measurement unit of Eliasson to shorten the time required for a leakage inspection process by providing a load to a package to accelerate fluid leakage (Eli a sson, c. 3, ll. 20-22 and c. 5, ll. 39-42). Regarding claim 11 , Maruyama et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 1 . Maruyama et al. is silent on a mechanism for transporting the sample. Eliasson teaches an apparatus (figs. 4 and 5) for inspecting flexible package samples 2); further comprising a pair of pick-up mechanisms ( 112 , 113 ) capable of periodically picking a package sample ( 2 ) from a first position (at belt 150) on a conveyor belt ( 150 , 121, 160 ) on which a plurality of said packages (2) travel and of releasing said sample ( 2 ) to a second position (at belt 160) on said transport line, wherein the transfer of the sample ( 2 ) from a first mechanism ( 120 ) to a second mechanism ( 120 ) takes place by means of an intermediate tilting mechanism ( 113 ), the purpose of which is to make sure that, at the end of the pick-up and release cycle carried out by the respective mechanisms ( 150, 160 ), the sample ( 2 ) is positioned on the belt ( 150, 121, 160 ) with the same face oriented upwards as when said sample ( 2 ) was picked (valves 112 and 113 transport package 2 so that package 2 is positioned on belt 160 with the same face oriented upwards as when the sample was picked up from belt 150 ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Maruyama et al. with the transport mechanism of Eliasson to allow for efficient and continuous inspection of packages for defects in a production line (Eliasson, c. 5, ll. 50-55). Regarding claims 16 , 17 , and 20 , Maruyama et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 1 3 . Maruyama et al. is silent on a step of squashing the sample. Eliasson teaches a method for inspecting flexible packages (2); wherein a step of mechanically causing squashing of a sample (2) is provided, so as to liberate, inside the package, the gas contained in the product (plate 25 is pressed against pillow pack 2 to liberate gas contained inside; c. 5, ll. 39-42) ; wherein the step of mechanical squashing is obtained by means of an instrument (20-22 and 25) comprising an appendix (25) connected to a pneumatic cylinder (20) or equivalent thereto, capable of imparting an impulsive thrust in order to cause the aforesaid effect of squashing the product inside the package (ram 20 imparts a force to plate 25 to press down on pillow pack 2; c. 5, ll. 39-42) ; wherein a step is provided in which an appendix ( 25 ) is brought into contact with the wall of the package sample ( 2 ) and preferably subsequently pressed in order to stretch the wall of the package sample ( 2 ), preferably however without deforming the product contained therein, so that the pressure difference between the inside of the package sample ( 2 ) and the volume of the inspection chamber ( 1 ) is increased (plate 25 is brought into contact with an upper wall of pillow pack 2 which stretches the wall of pillow pack 2 to some degree, without deforming the product inside pillow pack 2 to some degree, so that a pressure difference between pillow pack 2 and an interior or chamber 1 is increased, thus accelerating the leak inspection; c. 3, ll. 20-22 and c. 5, ll. 39-42) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Maruyama et al. with the probe measurement unit of Eliasson to shorten the time required for a leakage inspection process by providing a load to a package to accelerate fluid leakage (Eliasson, c. 3, ll. 20-22 and c. 5, ll. 39-42). Claim(s) 8-10 and 18 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (US 5,105,654) in view of Yasooka et al. (US 9,470,602 B2). Regarding claims 8-10 , Maruyama et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claims 1 and 3 . Maruyama et al. is silent on a mechanism for transporting the sample. Yasooka et al. teaches an apparatus ( 10; fig. 2 ) for inspecting flexible package samples (1 ); wherein there is provided a pick-up mechanism ( mechanism transporting carrying table 26 ) with reciprocating motion, capable of periodically picking a package sample ( 1 ) from a first position ( for example, at a left side of container 11; fig. 2 ) on a transport line on which a plurality of packages ( 1 ) travel ( the mechanism that transports carrying table 26 left to right picks up a package from a first position on a transport line; c. 4, ll. 4-6 ) , and of releasing said sample ( 1 ) to a second position ( below container 11; fig. 2 ) with respect to said transport line (the mechanism that transports carrying table 26 left to right releases carrying table 26 below container 11; fig. 2 ); wherein a carriage or automated shuttle ( 26 ) is provided for transferring the sample ( 1 ) from said second position ( below container 11 ) to a position proximal to said inspection chamber ( carrying table 26 is lifted from below container 11 into contact with container 11; c. 4, ll. 6-11 ), and possibly a collaborative robot capable of picking the sample ( 1 ) from said carriage or shuttle for transferring it into said inspection chamber ( some col la borative mechanism is required to lift carrying table 26 into contact with container 11; c. 4, ll. 6-11 ) ; wherein an opening ( opening at a bottom of container 11; fig. 2 ) is closeable by a plate ( 26 ) associated with said pick-up mechanism ( mechanism that transports carrying table 26 ), and wherein a seat (25) is defined in said plate ( an upper surface of carrying table 26 is a plate that supports package 1; fig. 2 ) . It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Maruyama et al. with the transporting mechanism of Yasooka et al. to allow for efficient leak inspection of packages on a production line. Regarding claim 18 , Maruyama et al. discloses the invention as set forth above with regard to claim 1 3 . Maruyama et al. is silent on a mechanism for transporting the sample. Yasooka et al. teaches a method for inspecting flexible package samples (1); wherein a step of picking, by means of an automated pick-up mechanism (mechanism that transports carrying table 26; fig. 2), the package sample (1) to be tested from a transport line for packaged products (apparatus 100 transports sealed batteries 1; c. 4, ll. 46-50), and a step of positioning the picked sample (1) into a chamber (11) of the inspection apparatus are provided (an automated mechanism transports carrying table 26 from a transport line into container 11 for leak inspection; c. 4, ll. 4-14). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Maruyama et al. with the transporting mechanism of Yasooka et al. to allow for efficient leak inspection of packages on a production line. Claim(s) 19 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Maruyama et al. (US 5,105,654) in view of Eliasson (US 7,614,282 B2) , and further, in view of Nothhelfer et al. (US 2005/0115305 A1). Regarding claim 19 , Maruyama et al. in view of Eliasson disclose the invention as set forth above with regard to claims 13 , 16 , and 17 . Maruyama et al. in view of Eliasson are silent on a gripping device to transport the sample. Nothhelfer et al. teaches a method of for inspecting package samples (fig. 1); wherein a picking step is obtained by means of a gripping sucker (23) capable of retaining the product package (13) also during testing in an inspection chamber (19) and are retractable into a support plate (support plate of device 23) supporting the product package (13) to be inspected, in order to prevent the tested product sample (13) from being in contact with deformable parts upon variation of the pressure (pick-and-place device 23 grips samples 13 with a vacuum suction for placement in leak detection chamber 19 of station 1 and are retractable away from station 1 which prevents samples 13 from being in contact with pick-and-place device 23 during a leak test; ¶ [0011]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time of filing to modify the apparatus of Maruyama et al. in view of Eliasson with the gripping device of Nothhelfer et al. to provide an efficient means of transporting a sample to be leak tested in a production line ( Nothhelfer et al., ¶ [0005]). In modifying the apparatus of Maruyama et al. in view of Eliasson with that of Nothhelfer et al. one of ordinary skill would have conceived of providing plural vacuum suction inputs on pick-and-place device 23 dependent on the size and weight of the package to be tested. Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Mendoza Machain (US 2014/0326053 A1) is cited for disclosing a leak inspection for sealed packages including a series of depressurization and pressurization cycles in which the variation of height of the package is monitored over time (claim 1). Con tact Information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Erika J. Villaluna whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-8348 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri 9:00 am - 5:30 pm . 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 Stephanie Bloss can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3555 . 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. /ERIKA J. VILLALUNA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2852