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 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 - 6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (abstract idea) without significantly more. Under Step 1 of the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, the claims are directed to a process (claim 1, a method), which is statutory categor y . However, evaluating claim 1 , under Step 2A , Prong One , the claim is directed to the judicial exception of an abstract idea using the grouping of a mathematical relationship /mental process . The limitations include: a second step of, for excitation vibration calculation for the stacked iron core in the transformer using a constitutive equation that includes an elasticity matrix representing a relationship between stress and strain in the stacked iron core in matrix representation, determining transverse elasticity moduli in two planes each including a stacking direction of the stacked iron core in the transformer , the transverse elasticity moduli being included as elements in the elasticity matrix; a third step of performing the excitation vibration calculation for the stacked iron core in the transformer using the constitutive equation that includes the elasticity matrix including, as the elements, the transverse elasticity moduli determined in the second step and acquiring a frequency spectrum of an excitation vibration of the stacked iron core in the transformer; a fourth step of calculating a difference between the frequency spectrum of the excitation noise of the stacked iron core in the transformer acquired in the first step and the frequency spectrum of the excitation vibration of the stacked iron core in the transformer acquired in the third step, as a difference spectrum; and a fifth step of diagnosing noise performance of the transformer based on the difference spectrum calculated in the fourth step . The claim recites limitations directed to mathematical concepts and data analysis, including frequency spectrum data, calculating a vibration response spectrum, calculating a difference between spectra. These operations constitute mathematical relationships and analysis of information, which fall within the category of mathematical concepts and mental processes identified in the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance. Next , under Step 2A , Prong Two evaluates whether additional elements of the claim “integrate the abstract idea into a practical application” in a manner that imposes a meaningful limit on the judicial exception, such that the claim is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception. The claim does not recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application. The additional limitation “ stacked iron core included in a transformer ” merely constitutes a field of use or technological environment in which the abstract idea is applied. The additional step of measuring excitation noise of a stacked iron core and acquiring spectral data; however, such measurement merely constitutes data gathering, which is considered insignificant extra-solution activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), The claim further recites determining transverse elastic moduli and performing excitation vibration calculations using constitutive equation, but these steps merely use mathematical relationships to analyze collected data therefore do not meaningfully limit the abstract idea. The claim does not recite any specific improvement to transformer technology or to vibration measurement technology. Instead, the claim merely analyzes spectral data and reports a diagnosis of noise performance, which amounts to collecting data and analyzing it using mathematical relationships. Accordingly , the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Under Step 2B , consideration is given to additional elements that may make the abstract idea significantly more. Under Step 2B , there are no additional elements that make the claim significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional element s of “ measuring an excitation noise of a stacked iron core included in a transformer and acquiring a frequency spectrum of the excitation noise, the stacked iron core being formed by stacking electrical steel sheets ” are considered insignificant extra-solution activity of collecting data. The act of data gathering is considered insufficient to elevate the claim to a practical application and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself . The limitations have been considered individually and as a whole and do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea itself. Dependent claim s 2-6 do not add anything which would render the claimed invention a patent eligible application of the abstract idea. The additional limitations, in claims 2-6, merely involve identifying a component responsible for noise and reporting a diagnostic result based on spectral analysis. These steps constitute data evaluation and presentation of results, which are insignificant extra-solution activities and therefore do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea . Double Patenting The non-statutory 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 non-statutory obviousness-type 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); and 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 a non-statutory double patenting ground provided the conflicting application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with this application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. Effective January 1, 1994, a registered attorney or agent of record may sign a terminal disclaimer. A terminal disclaimer signed by the assignee must fully comply with 37 CFR 3.73(b). Claim 1 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending, commonly-owned, Application No. 18/578,869. A n obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim not is patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined 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). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/578,869. Both the presently claimed invention and the invention of 18/578,869 are directed to substan tially the same technical subject matter, namely, analysis of vibration and noise characteristics of a transformer stacked iron core using a constitutive equation including elasticity matrices having transverse elastic moduli in planes including the stacking direction, and comparing frequency spectra derived from measured excitation noise and calculated vibration responses of the stacked iron core. Specifically, since claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/578,869 uses extra elements, “ a sixth step of calculating the degree of coincidence for each combination of the first provisional value and the second provisional value by changing the first provisional value and the second provisional value respectively and repeating the third step to the fifth step; and a seventh step of detecting a local maximum value of the degree of coincidence calculated for each combination of the first provisional value and the second provisional value in the sixth step, adopting the first provisional value when the degree of coincidence is a local maximum value as the transverse elastic moduli in two planes including the stacking direction of the stacked iron core of the first portion, and adopting the second provisional value when the degree of coincidence is a local maximum value as the transverse elastic moduli in two planes including the stacking direction of the stacked iron core of the second portion ” that are not required in claim 1 of the present application. The omission of these extra steps does not render the instant claim patentably distinct, as it would have been obvious to omit or include such post-processing controls in the broader touch screen method depending on desired implementation detail ( see MPEP § 804 ). While the co-pending Application No. 18/578,869 discloses a degree of coincidence between spectra, the claimed difference spectrum represents an alternative mathematical comparison of the same two spectral datasets. Selecting a particular mathematical form for performing this comparison, such as using correspondence measure versus a difference-based measure, represents a routine design choice and known alternative technique for analyzing spectral data . Accordingly, claim 1 of the present application is anticipated by, or at least obvious over claim 1 of the co-pending application No. 18/578,869 . This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Claim 2 is provisionally rejected on the ground of non-statutory obviousness-type double patenting as being unpatentable over claim 1 of co-pending, commonly-owned, Application No. 18/578,869. A n obviousness-type double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but an examined application claim not is patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined 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). Although the conflicting claims are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claim 2 of the present application is anticipated by claim 1 of co-pending Application No. 18/578,869. Claim 1 of a pplication No. 18/578,869 recite a method including: obtaining a frequency spectrum of excitation noise and frequency spectrum of calculated excitation vibration of a transformer stacked iron core ; calculating a degree of coincidence between the two spectra ; repeating the calculation for multiple combinations of provisional values of transverse elastic moduli; and detecting a local maximum value of the degree of coincidence and adopting the corresponding provisional values as transverse elastic moduli of the stacked iron core for respective portions thereof . Claim 2 of the present invention depends from claim 1 and further recites that “ a frequency at which a difference value of the difference spectrum is maximum is determined as a peak frequency ”. This limitation requires identifying a frequency corresponding to a maximum value derived from comparison between (i) a frequency spectrum of excitation noise and (ii) a frequency spectrum of calculated excitation vibration . C laim 1 of application No. 18/578,869 performs comparison between the same two types of spectral data and identifies a local maximum of the resulting comparison metric (i.e., the degree of coincidence). While C laim 1 of application No. 18/578,869 expresses the comparison using a “degree of coincidence”, and the instant claim 2 expresses the comparison using a “difference spectrum”, both approaches operate on the same underlying spectral inputs and involve evaluating a relationship between measured and calculated frequency-domain data. Under the broadest reasonable interpretation, identifying a local maximum of a comparison metric derived from spectral data, as recited in c laim 1 of application No. 18/578,869 , corresponds to identifying a peak in a function derived from those spectra. Determining a peak frequency at which a value derived from the comparison between the spectra is maximum, as recited in claim 2, therefore represents an obvious variation of identifying a local maximum of a comparison between the same spectral inputs. Accordingly, the additional limitation of claim 2 does not render the claim patentably distinct from claim 1 of application No. 18/578,869, but instead constitutes an obvious variation of the same spectral comparison and extremum-detection concept. This is a provisional obviousness-type double patenting rejection because the conflicting claims have not in fact been patented. Examiner’s Notes Claim 1 distinguish over the prior art of record because the closest prior art of record Zhang et al. ( NPL: “Measurement Analysis and Improvement of Vibroacoustic Characteristics of Amorphous Alloy Transformer”) discloses a study done on the vibration and acoustic noise characteristics of amorphous-alloy transformers. It measures transformer vibration and acoustic signals under operating conditions and analyzes their frequency-domain spectra to evaluate vibroacoustic behavior. The study compares experimentally measured vibration and acoustic responses with results obtained from simulation models of transformer cores in order to understand the sources of noise and improve transformer design. While this paper discloses measuring vibration and acoustic spectra and comparing them with simulation results, it does not disclose determining transverse elastic moduli in two planes each including a stacking direction of the stacked iron core of the transformer using a constitutive equation with an elasticity matrix as required by the claim. Furthermore, the paper does not compute a difference spectrum obtained by subtracting the calculated vibration spectrum from the measured excitation- noise spectrum for diagnostic purposes. Instead, the comparison is qualitative and used only for model validation rather than generating difference-spectrum diagnostic signal. Prior art The prior art made record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant’s disclosure: Ishida et al. (JP5527134) generally relates to analyzing vibration and noise characteristics of a transformer, particularly focusing on the behavior of a stacked iron core under excitation and the relationship between magnetostriction, vibration, and resulting acoustic noise. It discloses acquiring frequency-domain information (e.g., vibration or noise spectra) and performing analysis to evaluate transformer characteristics, and in some embodiments compares measured data with calculated or modeled data to assess how they differ at each frequency. However, JP5527134 does not disclose determining transverse elastic moduli in planes including the stacking direction using an elasticity matrix, nor does disclose calculating a difference spectrum between a measured excitation-noise spectrum and calculated excitation-vibration spectrum. Namikawa et al. [‘952] discloses a method for determining elastic properties of a laminated transformer iron core and performing vibration analysis using a configuration expression that represents a stress-strain relationship in matrix form. The method determines elastic parameters, including shear moduli in planes including the laminating direction of stacked electrical steel sheets, and iteratively matching calculated vibration characteristics with measured natural frequencies of a test core. The resulting elastic parameters are incorporated into an elastic matrix to improve the accuracy of vibration analysis and prediction of transformer core behavior. However, it fails to disclose acquiring a frequency spectrum of excitation noise of the stacked iron core, nor does it disclose calculating a frequency spectrum of excitation vibration for comparison with such measured excitation-noise spectrum, and does not disclose calculating a difference between these spectra as a difference spectrum for diagnosing transformer noise performance. Xu et al. [‘937] discloses a method for controlling structure-borne noise based on a combined-type vibration isolation device includes the following steps: S1: determining a combined-type vibration isolation device as required according to parameters of a mechanical device to be isolated, and installing the combined-type vibration isolation device on a horizontal bearing surface; S2: vertically placing the mechanical device to be isolated on the combined-type vibration isolation device; S3: adjusting a mass of an intermediate balance weight block of the combined-type vibration isolation device; and S4: adjusting an inherent frequency of the combined-type vibration isolation device to be lower than a structural vibration sound transmission frequency generated in the operation of the mechanical device to be isolated. Zhao et al. [‘657] discloses an oriented silicon steel product with a low iron loss for a low-noise transformer, and manufacturing method to reduce the iron loss and the magnetostrictive vibration noise of silicon steel substrate by refining the magnetic domain using laser scribing, the energy density of the incident laser and the visible light normal reflectivity R (visible light normal reflectivity of the magnesium silicate bottom layer) must be precisely matched to obtain a silicon steel sheet with significantly reduced vibration noise. Contact information Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to MOHAMED CHARIOUI whose telephone number is (571)272-2213 . The examiner can normally be reached Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 6 pm. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, Andrew Schechter can be reached on (571) 272-2302. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. 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. 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). Mohamed Charioui /MOHAMED CHARIOUI/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2857