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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 7/31/23, 11/15/24, 4/8/25 h ave been acknowledged by the examiner. Specification The lengthy specification has not been checked to the extent necessary to determine the presence of all possible minor errors. Applicant’s cooperation is requested in correcting any errors of which applicant may become aware in the specification. Claim Objections Claims 4-5 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 4 improperly dependent on its self, and claim 5 depend ents from claim 4 , and both claims 4-5 have not been examined at this point of time . Further, a “:” should be inserted after transition phrase/term “ comprising ” of claim 1, line 2. “,” after each method limitations (see claim 1, lines 3, 4, 5, respectively) should be updated to: --“;”--. 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. Claims 9-15 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. “ the occupant” (claim 9, line 3) lacks proper antecedent basis. “ the step of” (claim 10, line 1) lacks proper antecedent basis. It is suggested delete of “ step of ”. For clarity of the method formats. “a step of” (claim 15, line 1) should be delete to reflect base claim formats. “ the step of” (claim 15, line 2) also need to revised to:--“the”—to reflect changes as indicated above. 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 1-9 and 16-20 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-18 of U.S. Patent No. 12263769 to Bonk et (hereinafter the’ 769 reference patent) . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because every aspect method features set forth in this instant Application are claimed by the’ 769. The ‘769 (US patent reference) claims the method of manufacturing a heat mat for a vehicle seat, the method comprising : conveying a carrier sheet along a conveyor to a coating station , (compare claim 1, lines 3-4 of the ‘769). applying a conductive-particle based fluid on the carrier sheet, (compare claim 1, lines 5-6 of the ‘769). forming the coated carrier sheet into a conductive pad for the heat mat, (compare claim 1, lines 7-8 of the ‘769). attaching a conductor harness to the conductive pad, the conductor harness including a positive conductor bar arranged on a first side of the conductive pad and a negative conductor bar on an opposite second side of the conductive pad, (compare claim 1, lines 9-13 of the ‘769) and applying a protective sheet over at least a portion of the conductor harness to locate the conductive-particle based fluid and the first and second conductive bars between the carrier sheet and the protective sheet and to provide the heat mat for the vehicle seat (compare claim 1, lines 14-17 of the ‘769). The ‘769 further claims, regarding, Limitations of Claims 2-9 (compare claims 2-9 of the ‘769 ) , and Limitations of Claims 16-17 (compare claims 10-11 of the ‘769 ) Claim 18, t he method of claim 17, wherein applying the protective cover to the conductive pad includes inserting the conductor harness through the aperture formed in the cover extension and folding the cover extension around the conductive pad so that a portion of the cover extension attaches to a backside of the carrier sheet (compare claim 14, lines 25-30 of the ‘769 , respectively) . Limitations of Claims 19-20 (compare claims 12-13 of the ‘769 ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . Claim (s) 1- 7 , 16 as best understood is/are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Weiss (US 6150642) in view of Weiss (US 20040173594) hereinafter the ‘594 , and Stetson (4618530) and/or Applied Sciences (see Vol. 13, 6874, Published June 6, 2023 by Petru et al (hereafter The Petru et al) . Weiss discloses the claimed method of manufacturing a heat mat for a vehicle seat (see col. 1, lines 1, line 5-10) , the method comprising ; attaching a conductor harness 13, 18 to the conductive pad 12 , the conductor harness including a positive conductor bar 13A arranged on a first side of the conductive pad and a negative conductor bar 13B on an opposite second side of the conductive pad 12 (note that for the element to work the two electrodes 13A and 13A would have been opposite pole (e.g., negative versus positive) as broadly interpretation as above) , however, if argued that the Weiss does not teach the configuration includes a positive conductor bar arranged on a first side of the conductive pad and a negative conductor bar on an opposite second side of the conductive pad . Refer to the ‘594 for the teaching above such as a positive conductor bar 10 arranged on a first side of the conductive pad and a negative conductor bar 10 on an opposite second side of the conductive pad 12 (see Fig. 6 of the ‘594, respectively), and applying a protective sheet 7 over at least a portion of the conductor harness to locate the conductive-particle based fluid and the first and second conductive bars between the carrier sheet and the protective sheet and to provide the heat mat for the vehicle seat (see in light of discussion in ¶ [0033] of the ‘594 ). Weiss /the ‘594 as modified above is in silent in regarding to: conveying a carrier sheet along a conveyor to a coating station, applying a conductive-particle based fluid on the carrier sheet, forming the coated carrier sheet into a conductive pad for the heat mat, the Stetson discloses the above includes conveying a carrier sheet 12 (as mat) along a conveyor to a coating station 18/20 see process Figure provided). Further, the Petru et al disclose the applying a conductive-particle based fluid on the carrier sheet, forming the coated carrier sheet into a conductive pad for the heat mat (see title and abstract and in light of pages 4-9 for coating techniques includes vapor deposition, dip coating which readable on the above). Therefore, it would have been obvious to one having an ordinary skill in the art at the effective filing date of the invention to employ the Petru’s teaching onto the modified of Weiss invention above for various known benefits including facilitate operation would result. Further it is obvious to substitute one known element for another to obtain predictable result. (see MEPE §2143(b). limitations of claims 2 -3 are also met by the Weiss /the ‘594/Stetson as modified by Petru similar to the discussion of base claim 1 above in view of Fig. 1-2 of Weiss there two sections are above and below each other. (Note: Examiner presumes that claim 4-5 dependent on base claim 1 and claims will be rejected accordingly) Limitation of claim 4 is also met by the modified Weiss above. As applied to claim 5, refer to Weiss Fig. 1 where gap 15 are existed between two sections, respectively. As applied to claim 6, regarding, wherein the plurality of sections include d a checkered pattern. is matter of design choice and is not method inventive feature s when depart from the modified of Weiss invention as discussed above. As applied to claim 7, regarding to plurality of strip s. The Weiss elements 13, 18 which readable on the broadly claimed plurality of strips and its interconnection therefrom. As applied to claim 16 regarding, wherein applying the protective cover includes applying an adhesive around a perimeter of the conductive pad and placing the protective cover on the adhesive. It would have been obvious to secure a protective cover by applying an adhesive around a perimeter of the conductive pad and placing the protective cover on the adhesive since securing cover by an adhesive is well known and common general knowledge without exercising any inventive skills. Potential Allowable claims Claims 10-15 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the rejection(s) under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), 2nd paragraph, set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MINH N TRINH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4569 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-TH ~5:00-3:30 . 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 Thomas J Hong can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-0993 . 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. /MINH N TRINH/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3729 mt