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. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-3 and 5-8 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-4 of copending Application No. 18/395851 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because t he current application’s claims are broader and include the copending claims within their scope . This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. The highlighting indicates differences from the exact language of the copending claims. Regarding claim 1, copending claim 1 recites a signal processing method comprising: a time waveform acquisition step of acquiring, from an i-th sensor, an i-th time waveform related to an i-th physical quantity generated by an external force, a velocity, or a displacement having at least a periodic variation acting on an object for each integer i of 1 or more and N or less with N being a predetermined integer of 1 (the copending claim recites “2 or more”, which is narrower in scope) or more (see claim 1, indented clause, “a time waveform...”) ; a frequency spectrum generation step of generating an i-th frequency spectrum for each integer i based on the i-th time waveform (see claim 1, indented clause, “a frequency spectrum...”) ; and a first state index calculation step of calculating, for each integer i (the copending claim recites j being 2 or more, which is narrower in scope) , a difference between a phase of a first signal component corresponding to a first peak included in a first frequency spectrum and a phase of a second signal component that corresponds to a second peak included in the i-th frequency spectrum and has a frequency that is a rational multiple of (the copending recites the same frequency which is a specific example of a rational multiple) a frequency of the first signal component as an index indicating a state of the object (see claim 1, indented clause, “a first state index...”) . Regarding claim 2, the copending claims recite the signal processing method according to claim 1, wherein the frequency of the second signal component is a natural number multiple of the frequency of the first signal component (see claim 1, indented clause, “a first state index...”) . Regarding claim 3, the copending claims recite the signal processing method according to claim 1, wherein the integer N is 2 or more (see claim 1, indented clause, “a time waveform...”) . Regarding claim 5, the copending claims recite the signal processing method according to claim 3, further comprising: a third state index calculation step of calculating a vector serving as an index indicating a state of the object based on the first to N-th time waveforms (see claim 2) . Regarding claim 6, the copending claims recite the signal processing method according to claim 5, further comprising: a Lissajous figure generation step of generating a Lissajous figure indicating a trajectory of the vector (see claim 3) . Regarding claim 7, the copending claims recite a signal processing device comprising: a time waveform acquisition circuit configured to acquire, from an i-th sensor, an i-th time waveform related to an i-th physical quantity generated by an external force, a velocity, or a displacement having at least a periodic variation acting on an object for each integer i of 1 or more and N or less with N being a predetermined integer of 1 (the copending claim recites “2 or more”, which is narrower in scope) or more (see claim 4, indented clause, “a time waveform...”) ; a frequency spectrum generation circuit configured to generate an i-th frequency spectrum for each integer i based on the i-th time waveform (see claim 4, indented clause, “a frequency spectrum...”) ; and a first state index calculation circuit configured to calculate, for each integer I (the copending claim recites j being 2 or more, which is narrower in scope) , a difference between a phase of a first signal component corresponding to a first peak included in a first frequency spectrum and a phase of a second signal component that corresponds to a second peak included in the i-th frequency spectrum and has a frequency that is a rational multiple of (the copending recites the same frequency which is a specific example of a rational multiple) a frequency of the first signal component as an index indicating a state of the object (see claim 4, indented clause, “a first state index...”) . Regarding claim 8, the copending claims recite ... : a time waveform acquisition step of acquiring, from an i-th sensor, an i-th time waveform related to an i-th physical quantity generated by an external force, a velocity, or a displacement having at least a periodic variation acting on an object for each integer i of 1 or more and N or less with N being a predetermined integer of 1 (the copending claim recites “2 or more”, which is narrower in scope) or more (see claim 1, indented clause, “a time waveform...”) ; a frequency spectrum generation step of generating an i-th frequency spectrum for each integer i based on the i-th time waveform (see claim 1, indented clause, “a frequency spectrum...”) ; and a first state index calculation step of calculating, for each integer I (the copending claim recites j being 2 or more, which is narrower in scope) , a difference between a phase of a first signal component corresponding to a first peak included in a first frequency spectrum and a phase of a second signal component that corresponds to a second peak included in the i-th frequency spectrum and has a frequency that is a rational multiple of (the copending recites the same frequency which is a specific example of a rational multiple) a frequency of the first signal component as an index indicating a state of the object (see claim 1, “a first state index...”) . Regarding claim 8, the copending claims do not recite the highlighted limitations: a signal processing program for causing a computer to execute (the steps of the claim). Examiner takes official notice that it is well-known and common knowledge to implement a method with a program that causes a computer to execute it . It would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art, to modify the invention of the copending claim to include a signal processing program for causing a computer to execute (the steps of the claim), because such a modification would have combined prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. at 416, 82 USPQ2d at 1395. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 Claims 1-8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to the judicial exception of abstract ideas without significantly more. The claim(s) recite(s) abstract ideas as indicated by in-line comments below . This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application for reasons also indicated by in-line comments below . The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception for reasons also indicated by in-line comments below . 1. A signal processing method comprising: a time waveform acquisition step of acquiring, from an i-th sensor, an i-th time waveform related to an i-th physical quantity generated by an external force, a velocity, or a displacement having at least a periodic variation acting on an object for each integer i of 1 or more and N or less with N being a predetermined integer of 1 or more (does not integrate into a practical application because insignificant extra-solution activity; not significantly more because insignificant extra-solution activity) ; a frequency spectrum generation step of generating an i-th frequency spectrum for each integer i based on the i-th time waveform (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) ; and a first state index calculation step of calculating, for each integer i, a difference between a phase of a first signal component corresponding to a first peak included in a first frequency spectrum and a phase of a second signal component that corresponds to a second peak included in the i-th frequency spectrum and has a frequency that is a rational multiple of a frequency of the first signal component as an index indicating a state of the object (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) . 2. The signal processing method according to claim 1, wherein the frequency of the second signal component is a natural number multiple of the frequency of the first signal component (merely further details of abstract limitations) . 3. The signal processing method according to claim 1, wherein the integer N is 2 or more (merely further details of abstract limitations) . 4. The signal processing method according to claim 3, further comprising: a second state index calculation step of calculating, for each integer j of 2 or more and N or less, a difference between a phase of a third signal component corresponding to a third peak included in the first frequency spectrum and a phase of a fourth signal component that corresponds to a fourth peak included in a j-th frequency spectrum and has the same frequency as a frequency of the third signal component as an index indicating a state of the object (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) . 5. The signal processing method according to claim 3, further comprising: a third state index calculation step of calculating a vector serving as an index indicating a state of the object based on the first to N-th time waveforms (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) . 6. The signal processing method according to claim 5, further comprising: a Lissajous figure generation step of generating a Lissajous figure indicating a trajectory of the vector (abstract; mathematical concepts; mathematical calculations) . Regarding claim 7, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for all limitations. Regarding claim 8, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for all limitations except the following. 8. A signal processing program for causing a computer to execute (does not integrate into a practical application because generic computer performing generic computer functions, not significantly more because generic computer performing generic computer functions) : ... (steps similar to those in claim 1) . 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) 1-4 and 7-8 is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Esser (2008/0111264) . Regarding claim 1, Esser discloses a signal processing method comprising: a time waveform acquisition step (act 410; see paragraphs 23 and 34) of acquiring, from an i-th sensor (a respective one of sensors 14; see paragraph 18) , an i-th time waveform (digitized signal of its output; see paragraph 22) related to an i-th physical quantity (vibration, displacement, etc.; see paragraph 18) generated by an external force, a velocity, or a displacement having at least a periodic variation (see paragraph 18) acting on an object (injection molding machine 12; see paragraph 18) for each integer i of 1 or more and N or less with N being a predetermined integer of 1 or more (there may be multiple sensors with respective variables being measured; see paragraph 18) ; a frequency spectrum generation step (act 412; see paragraph 35) of generating an i-th frequency spectrum (frequency spectrum; see paragraph 35) for each integer i based on the i-th time waveform; and a first state index calculation step (act 414; see paragraph 35) of calculating, for each integer i, a difference between a phase (relative phase change; see paragraph 23) of a first signal component corresponding to a first peak (a fundamental vibrational mode; see paragraph 23; this appears in a spectrum as a peak) included in a first frequency spectrum and a phase of a second signal component that corresponds to a second peak (a higher order mode; see paragraph 23) included in the i-th frequency spectrum and has a frequency that is a rational multiple of a frequency of the first signal component (by definition, a higher order mode has a frequency that is a rational multiple of that of a fundamental mode; see paragraph 23) as an index (alarm condition; see paragraphs 27 and 35) indicating a state of the object. Regarding claim 2, Esser discloses the signal processing method according to claim 1, wherein the frequency of the second signal component is a natural number multiple of the frequency of the first signal component (this follows from the first component being a fundamental mode and the second being a higher-order mode; see paragraph 23) . Regarding claim 3, Esser discloses the signal processing method according to claim 1, wherein the integer N is 2 or more (the first overtone is clearly included in the range of harmonics discussed in paragraph 23) . Regarding claim 4, Esser discloses the signal processing method according to claim 3, further comprising: a second state index calculation step of calculating, for each integer j of 2 or more and N or less, a difference between a phase of a third signal component corresponding to a third peak included in the first frequency spectrum and a phase of a fourth signal component that corresponds to a fourth peak included in a j-th frequency spectrum and has the same frequency as a frequency of the third signal component as an index indicating a state of the object (see paragraph 23) . Regarding claim 7, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1 for all limitations. Claim 7 is essentially a device version of method claim 1, with clearly corresponding limitations. Regarding claim 8, see the foregoing rejection of claim 1, for all limitations except the following. Claim 8 is essentially a program and computer version of method claim 1, with clearly corresponding limitations. Esser further discloses a signal processing program (32; see paragraph 22) for causing a computer (20; see paragraph 32) to execute: ... (limitations similar to those of claim 1) . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT GEOFFREY T EVANS whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-2369 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F, 9 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 Walter Lindsay can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-1674 . 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. /WALTER L LINDSAY JR/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2852 /GEOFFREY T EVANS/ Examiner, Art Unit 2852