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. DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the election filed 3/2/2026. Applicant has elected Species A (claims 1-6) without traverse. Accordingly, claims 1- 6 (amended) are pending for examination. 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 (i.e., a law of nature, a natural phenomenon, or an abstract idea) without significantly more. Claim 1 is directed to the abstract idea of performing a process of “ generating transaction data, storing contract data and making payment” which is grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” such as “ commercial or legal interactions: marketing or sales activities or behaviors) in prong one of step 2A (MPEP 2016.04(a)). Claim 1 recites “a transaction data generation ….as transaction data….” , “a communication…transmit…the transaction data generated, and receive…the transaction data…”, “a storage…store…data in which a predetermined process of distribution an effect…and making a payment” and “an execution…execute the predetermined process based on the approved data”. Accordingly, claim 1 is an abstract idea. Claim 1 includes the additional elements such as “a platooning assistance device comprising terminals”, “for each of a plurality of vehicles making up a platoon ”, “terminals of a plurality of vehicles”, “section(s) configured to”, “generating … platoon identification information for identifying the platoon, vehicle identification information for identifying the vehicle, and a fuel consumption amount of a platooning vehicle”, “to a network”, “from the network”, “…of each of the plurality of vehicles that is approved by a function of a blockchain”, “one of the terminal s of the plurality of vehicles”, “smart contract …. platooning ….is programed ”, “in the blockchain” represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and /or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use. With respect to “generating”, “programed” and “executing”, the claim lacks detail regarding what “generating”, “programed” and “executing” comprise (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). Therefore, as Applicant has neither placed a restriction on how “generating”, “programed” and “executing” are performed nor describe how the functions are accomplished the limitations do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application as they are no more than “apply it” (MPEP 2106.05(f)(1)). When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)). Hence, claim 1 is not patent eligible. Depending claims 2-6 recite the additional elements of “wherein the effect of….is a gain corresponding to a difference between an actual value of a fuel consumption amount of each of the plurality of vehicles and an average value of the fuel consumption amount of each of the plurality of vehicles (claim 2), “wherein the effect of …is a gain corresponding to a difference between an actual value of a fuel consumption amount of each of the plurality of vehicles and an estimation value of a fuel consumption amount of …. that is estimated when ….is not performed”” (claim 3); “when the …. i s completed...the predetermined process” (claim 4); “…. predetermined process at a predetermined time” (claim 5); “predetermined process on a predetermined date” (claim 6)” which is grouped under “Certain methods of organizing human activity” such as “ commercial or legal interactions: marketing or sales activities or behaviors”” and “Mathematical Concepts” (claims 2 and 3). As in the case of independent claim 1, the additional elements “platooning”, “device” and “execution section” recited in claims 2-6 represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and /or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use . When analyzed under step 2B (MPEP 2106.04II), because the additional elements do no more than represent the use of a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea and/or does no more than generally link the abstract idea to a particular field of use, they do not provide an improvement to computer functionality, or an improvement to another technology or technical field and, therefore, do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself (MPEP 2106.05(I)(A)(f)&(h)). Hence, 2-6 are not patent eligible. 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 applicant regards as his invention. Claim s 1-6 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. Independent c laim 1 recites “a platooning assistance device comprising terminals for each of a plurality of vehicles making up a platoon… wherein each terminal of the plurality of vehicles includes: a transaction data generation section…a communication section; wherein one of the terminals of the plurality of vehicles includes: a storage section…an execution section…” . It is unclear whether the terminals are part of the device or part of the vehicles . This raises questions as to the intended metes and bounds of the claimed invention. Claims 2 and 3 recite the limitation “ the effect of platooning”. There is insufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claims. Claims 4, 5 and 6 recite “the platooning assistance device according to any one of claim 1 ”. It is unclear what is meant by “any one of” as there is only one claim 1. Claim 1 recites “a transaction data generation section configured to …”, “a communication section configured to ….” a nd “an execution section configured to…” invokes 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. However, the written description fails to disclose the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the entire claimed function and to clearly link the structure, material, or acts to the function, MPEP2181 III. Unlike “storage section” where applicant’s specification (paragraph 0044) at least provides “storage section…is composed of a hard disk or a memory””, the other sections are not similarly described. Therefore, the claim is indefinite and is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, second paragraph. Applicant may: (a) Amend the claim so that the claim limitation will no longer be interpreted as a limitation under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph; (b) Amend the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites what structure, material, or acts perform the entire claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (c) Amend the written description of the specification such that it clearly links the structure, material, or acts disclosed therein to the function recited in the claim, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)). If applicant is of the opinion that the written description of the specification already implicitly or inherently discloses the corresponding structure, material, or acts and clearly links them to the function so that one of ordinary skill in the art would recognize what structure, material, or acts perform the claimed function, applicant should clarify the record by either: (a) Amending the written description of the specification such that it expressly recites the corresponding structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function and clearly links or associates the structure, material, or acts to the claimed function, without introducing any new matter (35 U.S.C. 132(a)); or (b) Stating on the record what the corresponding structure, material, or acts, which are implicitly or inherently set forth in the written description of the specification, perform the claimed function. For more information, see 37 CFR 1.75(d) and MPEP §§ 608.01(o) and 2181. Depending claims 2-6 are rejected under the same rationale as claim 1 because claims 2-6 inherit the deficiencies of claim 1 respectively due to their dependency. 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. Claims 1-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghannam et al. (US 2022/0066469 A1) in view of “Smart-Contract-Based Economical Platooning in Blockchain-Enabled Urban Internet of Vehicles” and HITOMI et al. (US 2020/0380871 A1). As per Claim 1 Ghannam (‘469) discloses a transaction data generation section configured to generate, as transaction data, platoon identification information for identifying the platoon (platoon identifiers/name of the platoon) , vehicle identification information for identifying the vehicle (the vehicles included within the platoon), see at least paragraph 0010 (the use of Blockchain may allow vehicles….to store or have access to a ledger; each vehicle may be apprised of the same information as any other vehicle; the ledger may include for example, information about various platoons such as platoon identifiers e.g. the name of the platoon…. The vehicles included within the platoon…information about individual vehicles …. Or any other information associated with any of the vehicles and/or platoons; the ledger may be updated based on Blockchain transactions), paragraph 0038 (update to the ledger; each of the added vehicles may identify itself) , paragraph 0011 (request to initiate a platoon; the request may be in the form of a Blockchain transaction) a communication section configured to transmit, to a network, the transaction data generated, and receive, from the network, the transaction data of each of the plurality of vehicles that is approved by a function of a blockchain , see at least paragraph 0038 (update to the ledger; each of the added vehicles may identify itself), paragraph 0024 ( allow the vehicle to perform mining operations; the mining operations may serve to validate transactions that are registered before they are saved to the ledger), paragraph 0039 (vehicle sending a communication to one or more of the other vehicles in the platoon; vehicle can simply provide the ledger update itself) , paragraph 0011 (request to initiate a platoon; the request may be in the form of a Blockchain transaction) , paragraph 0019 (communications network) Ghannam (‘469) discloses terminals for each of a plurality of vehicles making up a platoon wherein each terminal of the plurality of vehicles includes sections , see at least paragraph 0018 (platoon… include one or more nodes organized into a coordinated grouping; the plurality of nodes may include vehicles; the platoon system may also include at least a communications network and a server), paragraph 0019 (communications between vehicles), paragraph 0047 (the nodes may also begin performing various communications with one another to coordinate synchronized actions) and Fig 2, but fails to explicitly disclose a platooning assistance device comprising terminals. HITOMI (‘871) teaches a platooning assistance device comprising terminals, see at least claim 1 of HITOMI (a platoon organization device that organizes a platoon of vehicles), paragraph 0030 (platoon organization device…may be mobile terminals). Both Ghannam and HITOMI are directed toward platooning traveling of vehicles. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghannam’s invention to include a platooning assistance device comprising terminals. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of reducing risk. Ghannam (‘469) discloses a transaction data generation section configured to generate, as transaction data, platoon identification information for identifying the platoon (platoon identifiers/name of the platoon), vehicle identification information for identifying the vehicle (the vehicles included within the platoon), see at least paragraph 0010 (the use of Blockchain may allow vehicles….to store or have access to a ledger; each vehicle may be apprised of the same information as any other vehicle; the ledger may include for example, information about various platoons such as platoon identifiers e.g. the name of the platoon…. The vehicles included within the platoon…information about individual vehicles …. Or any other information associated with any of the vehicles and/or platoons; the ledger may be updated based on Blockchain transactions), paragraph 0038 (update to the ledger; each of the added vehicles may identify itself), paragraph 0011 (request to initiate a platoon; the request may be in the form of a Blockchain transaction), but fails to explicitly disclose generate a fuel consumption amount of a platooning vehicle. “Smart-Contract-Based Economical Platooning in Blockchain-Enabled Urban Internet of Vehicles” discloses generate a fuel consumption amount of a platooning vehicle, see at least page 4128 (Fuel Consumption Analysis; platoon fuel consumption; the total fuel consumption of an individual vehicle) and page 4129 (platoon; the amount of fuel consumed). Both Ghannam and “Smart-Contract-Based Economical Platooning in Blockchain-Enabled Urban Internet of Vehicles” are directed toward platooning and blockchain. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghannam’s invention to include generate a fuel consumption amount of a platooning vehicle. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of allowing fuel saving of platooning to be determined. Ghannam (‘469) discloses a storage section configured to store data in which a predetermined process is programed , paragraph 0020 (the vehicle comprises at least one or more processors, memory, a ledger, one or more mining modules, a controller and/or a digital wallet) , paragraph 0001 (managing vehicle platooning using Blockchains or other distributed ledger technologies) , paragraph 0021 (vehicle ….processing the input data based on stored computer-executable instructions and generating output data; computer-executable instructions may be stored, for example, in data storage), paragraph 0025 (validate transactions that are registered before the y are saved to the ledger; ensure that no illegitimate transactions or blocks are added to the Blockchain on the ledger) , but fails to explicitly disclose an execution section configured to execute the predetermined process; store smart contract data in which a predetermined process of distributing an effect of platooning and making a payment is programed, and execute the predetermined process based on the approved data in the blockchain . “Smart-Contract-Based Economical Platooning in Blockchain-Enabled Urban Internet of Vehicles” an execution section configured to execute the predetermined process; store smart contract data in which a predetermined process of distributing an effect of platooning and making a payment is programed, and execute the predetermined process based on the approved data in the blockchain, see at least page 4122 (a smart contract if employed to enable the payment based on a blockchain between the PH and the platoon members), paragraph 4123 (a smart contract payment mechanism to compel the vehicle receiving the platoon service to pay the corresponding service fee) and p age 4126 (contract is synchronized into the platoon blockchain; execution of the smart contract will be triggered to complete the service transfer transaction). Both Ghannam and “Smart-Contract-Based Economical Platooning in Blockchain-Enabled Urban Internet of Vehicles” are directed toward platooning and blockchain. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghannam’s invention to include an execution section configured to execute the predetermined process; store smart contract data in which a predetermined process of distributing an effect of platooning and making a payment is programed, and execute the predetermined process based on the approved data in the blockchain. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of speeding up payment process. As per Claim 2 Ghannam (‘469) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the effect of platooning is a gain corresponding to a difference between an actual value of a fuel consumption amount of each of the plurality of vehicles and an average value of the fuel consumption amount of each of the plurality of vehicles . However, a whereby (wherein) clause is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result (the effect of platooning is…) of a process step positively recited. In addition, “Smart-Contract-Based Economical Platooning in Blockchain-Enabled Urban Internet of Vehicles” teaches wherein the effect of platooning is a gain , see at least page 4124 ( convert fuel consumption into payment ; platoon… it can achieve lower energy consumption than traditional individual vehicle driving), pa ge 4129 (compare with driving alone on the road, joining a platoon can reduce fuel consumption), page 4122 ( platooning model reduces energy consumption and saves 5-20% fuel cost), page 4128 (fuel consumption analysis: fuel consumption; average; total fuel consumption of an individual vehicle) , paragraph 4128 (the total fuel consumption of an individual vehicle is; for the platoon with N vehicles, the overall fuel consumption is as follows…), page 4132 (simulation results indicated that the urban platoon mode was far superior to the individual vehicle mode in terms of fuel consumption). Therefore, prior arts still read on the claimed invention. As per Claim 3 Ghannam (‘469) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the effect of platooning is a gain corresponding to a difference between an actual value of a fuel consumption amount of each of the plurality of vehicles and an estimation value of a fuel consumption amount of a vehicle that is estimated when platooning is not performed . However, a whereby (wherein) clause is not given weight when it simply expresses the intended result (the effect of platooning is…) of a process step positively recited. In addition, “Smart-Contract-Based Economical Platooning in Blockchain-Enabled Urban Internet of Vehicles” teaches wherein the effect of platooning is a gain , see at least page 4124 (convert fuel consumption into payment; platoon… it can achieve lower energy consumption than traditional individual vehicle driving), page 4129 (compare with driving alone on the road, joining a platoon can reduce fuel consumption), page 4122 (platooning model reduces energy consumption and saves 5-20% fuel cost), page 4128 (fuel consumption analysis: fuel consumption; average; total fuel consumption of an individual vehicle), paragraph 4128 (the total fuel consumption of an individual vehicle is; for the platoon with N vehicles, the overall fuel consumption is as follows…), page 4132 (simulation results indicated that the urban platoon mode was far superior to the individual vehicle mode in terms of fuel consumption). Therefore, prior arts still read on the claimed invention. As per Claim 4 Ghannam (‘469) fails to explicitly disclose wherein when the platooning is completed, the execution section executes the predetermined process . “Smart-Contract-Based Economical Platooning in Blockchain-Enabled Urban Internet of Vehicles” wherein when the platooning is completed, the execution section executes the predetermined process., see at least page 4126 (once the PH rotates or a member arrives at its destination and leaves the platoon, the execution of the smart contract will be triggered to complete the service transfer transaction). Both Ghannam and “Smart-Contract-Based Economical Platooning in Blockchain-Enabled Urban Internet of Vehicles” are directed toward platooning and blockchain. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghannam’s invention to include wherein when the platooning is completed, the execution section executes the predetermined process. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of speeding up payment process. Claims 5-6 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Ghannam et al. (US 2022/0066469 A1) in view of “Smart-Contract-Based Economical Platooning in Blockchain-Enabled Urban Internet of Vehicles” and HITOMI et al. (US 2020/0380871 A1), as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Menadue (US 2019/0378418 A1). As per Claim 5 Ghannam (‘469) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the execution section executes the predetermined process at a predetermined time interval during the platooning . Menadue (‘418) discloses wherein the execution section executes the predetermined process at a predetermined time interval during the platooning, see at least paragraph 0045 (dates for task execution and scheduling; updates task process to blockchain), paragraph 0047 (smart contract; create a scheduled task date associated with the task), paragraph 0023 (time frame; platoon). Both Ghannam and Menadue are directed toward platooning and blockchain. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghannam’s invention to include wherein the execution section executes the predetermined process at a predetermined time interval during the platooning. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of speeding up process. As per Claim 6 Ghannam (‘469) fails to explicitly disclose wherein the execution section executes the predetermined process on a predetermined date . Menadue (‘418) discloses execute predetermined process on a predetermined date, see at least paragraph 0045 (dates for task execution and scheduling; updates task process to blockchain), paragraph 0047 (smart contract; create a scheduled task date associated with the task). Both Ghannam and Menadue are directed toward platooning and blockchain. Therefore, the Examiner asserts that it would be obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Ghannam’s invention to include wherein the execution section executes the predetermined process on a predetermined date. One would have been motivated to do so for the benefit of speeding up process . Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT CHIA-YI LIU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1573 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Thurs 9-8 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 RYAN DONLON can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3602 . 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. /CHIA-YI LIU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3692