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. Priority Receipt is acknowledged of papers submitted under 35 U.S.C. 119(a)-(d), which papers have been placed of record in the file. Information Disclosure Statement The references listed in the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 12/26/2023 have been considered by the examiner (see attached PTO-1449 forms). 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 §§ 706.02(l)(1) - 706.02(l)(3) 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 USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The 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/process/file/efs/guidance/eTD-info-I.jsp. Claims 1-5 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1-8 of copending Application No. 18/395,835 (reference application). Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because both claims the same essential elements. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection because the patentably indistinct claims have not in fact been patented. 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: a time waveform acquisition circuit, a frequency spectrum generation circuit, and a first state index calculation circuit in claim 4. 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 § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1- 5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory subject matter. T he claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. 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 2 or more; a frequency spectrum generation step of generating an i- th frequency spectrum for each integer i based on the i- th time waveform ; and a first 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 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 a j- th frequency spectrum and has the same frequency as a frequency of the first signal component as an index indicating a state of the object … Claim 4 recites 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 2 or more; a frequency spectrum generation circuit configured to generate an i- th frequency spectrum for each integer i based on the i- th time waveform; and a first state index calculation circuit configured to calculate, for each integer j of 2 or more and N or less, 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 a j- th frequency spectrum and has the same frequency as a frequency of the first signal component as an index indicating a state of the object . … Claim 5 recites a program for causing a computer to execute: 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 2 or more; a frequency spectrum generation step of generating an i- th frequency spectrum for each integer i based on the i- th time waveform ; and a first 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 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 a j- th frequency spectrum and has the same frequency as a frequency of the first signal component as an index indicating a state of the object … and thus grouped as Mathematical concepts – mathematical relationships, mathematical formulas or equations, mathematical calculations. These judicial exceptions are not integrated into a practical application because the additional elements, the data gathering step, (claim 1) “ 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 2 or more ” (claim 4 ) “ 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 2 or more ” (claim 5 ) “ 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 2 or more ” are mere data gathering that do not add a meaningful limitation to the method as they are insignificant extra-solution activity. Furthermore, the additional elements (claim s 4 and 5 ) t he “ processing device , time waveform acquisition circuit , frequency spectrum generation circuit , first state index calculation circuit , and computer ” are recited as performing generic computer functions routinely used in computer applications. Generic computer components recited as performing generic computer functions amount to no more than using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea . All of which are considered not indicative of integration into a practical application (see “ Federal Register / Vol. 84, No. 4/ Monday, January 7, 2019 / Notices ” – page 55, second column). The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because the additional elements of the data gathering steps are mere data collect steps which fall under insignificant extra solution activity and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” - see MPEP 2106.05(g). The additional elements of the processing device, circuits and computer are mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and deemed insufficient to qualify as “significantly more” see MPEP 2106.05(f). Dependent claims 2 and 3 when analyzed as a whole are patent ineligible under 35 U.S.C. §101 because the dependent claims fail to establish that the claims are not directed to an abstract idea as the y are directed mathematical concepts and/or mental processes and do not add significantly more to the abstract idea. Claim 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to non-statutory matter. The claim is drawn to a “computer readable medium”. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim drawn to a computer readable medium covers forms of non-transitory tangible media and transitory propagating signals per se in view of the ordinary and customary meaning of computer readable media, particularly when the specification is silent (see MPEP 2111.01). Because the broadest reasonable interpretation covers a signal per se, a rejection under 35 USC 101 is appropriate as covering non-statutory subject matter. The Examiner suggests that Applicant amends the claims as follows: “non-transitory computer readable medium containing computer instructions stored therein for causing a computer processor to perform steps of”. Allowable Subject Matter Claim s 1-5 would be allowable if rewritten or amended to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 101 , set forth in this Office action. The following is an examiner’s statement of reasons for allowance: Claim 1 is considered to be allowable over the cited prior art because none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests, in combination with the other claimed limitations, a first 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 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 a j- th frequency spectrum and has the same frequency as a frequency of the first signal component as an index indicating a state of the object. Claim 4 is considered to be allowable over the cited prior art because none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests, in combination with the other claimed limitations, 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 a j- th frequency spectrum and has the same frequency as a frequency of the first signal component as an index indicating a state of the object Claim 5 is considered to be allowable over the cited prior art because none of the cited prior art teaches or suggests, in combination with the other claimed limitations, a first 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 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 a j- th frequency spectrum and has the same frequency as a frequency of the first signal component as an index indicating a state of the object. Relevant Prior Art / Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Stein et al. (US Patent Number 10,534,018 B1 ) discloses a time base correction method for sampling scope-based measurements ; YAMAMOTO et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2016/0206230 A1 ) discloses a period estimation apparatus for estimat ing a first frequency of a one-dimensional signal on the basis of a phase difference between the one-dimensional signal and a reference signal and a temporal change in the phase difference ; Miyashita et al. (US Patent Application Publication 2007/0272599 A1 ) discloses a moving body inspection apparatus for obtaining a sequential waveform data from a movement sensor and analyzing a plurality of waveforms of the waveform data for compar ing phases among a plurality of movement waveforms . Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT RICKY GO whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3340 . The examiner can normally be reached on Monday through Friday from 9 :00 a.m. to 5:30 p.m. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Arleen M. Vazquez can be reached on FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2619 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /RICKY GO/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857