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. Drawings The drawings are objected to because the reference number “100” for “the thermal resistance device” is missing in the drawings. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Specification The disclosure is objected to because of the following informalities: In paragraph 0021, more detail is needed. Current description is insufficient in the method steps shown in Figs. 3-12. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Objections Claim s 2 and 11 are objected to because of the following informalities: delete the parenthesis from the claims 2 and 11, and amend the claims to recite the x is represented by 1.94≤x≤1.97 . Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Palanchoke et al. ( JP2015-152597; machine translation attached to this action ) . Regarding claim 1, Palanchoke teaches a thermal resistance device (thermal/radiation detector 100; see “Technical-Field” and figs. 3 and 5 ) comprising: a support (support element 108; 6 th page) having an opening (gap 110 forming a cavity ) formed in a center thereof, the support comprising silicon ( composed of conductive material including WSi ; 8 th page) ; a silicon oxynitride layer (dielectric 122 composed of SiO2 or SiON ; 8 th page) formed on the support ( support element 108) to cover the opening (110) ; a stress control pattern (patterned metal element 112 composed of aluminum, tungsten, copper or titanium , having a circular, rectangular, triangular or cross-shaped structures ; 6 th page) comprising a patterned metal material on the silicon oxynitride layer (122) over the opening; and a vanadium oxide layer ( the radiation detector which is formed in the metal element 112 and is equipped with the MIM structure including the temperature measuring material 116 composed of vanadium oxide ; 7 th and 9 th pages) covering the stress control pattern (112) and configured to receive tensile stress from the stress control pattern. Regarding claim 10, Palanchoke teaches a method of manufacturing a thermal resistance device (thermal/radiation detector 100; see “Technical-Field” and figs. 3 and 5), comprising: preparing a support substrate in which a silicon oxynitride layer is formed on a silicon support (support element 108, the support comprising silicon composed of conductive material including WSi ; 6 th and 8 th page); forming a stress control pattern by depositing and patterning a metal layer on the silicon oxynitride layer (dielectric 122 composed of SiO2 or SiON formed on the support 108 , and the filter characteristics are determined by the pattern pitch and their dimension; see middle of 4 th page ) ; and forming a vanadium oxide layer to cover the stress control pattern (the radiation detector which is formed in the metal element 112 and is equipped with the MIM structure including the temperature measuring material 116 composed of vanadium oxide; 7 th and 9 th pages). 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. Claim s 2-3 and 11-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palanchoke in view of Ma r cel et al. (US Pub. 2019/0243036) . Regarding claim s 2 and 11 , Palanchoke teaches the claimed invention except for the thermal resistance device , wherein the vanadium oxide layer comprises VOx , where the x is represented by 1.94≤x≤1.97. Marcel teaches an infrared-active thermal resistance device having a n n-doped vanadium oxide (oxygen sub-stoichiometric vanadium oxide) having a formula VO 2-x , where x ranges from 0.1 to 0.25 , allow ing for the switching temperature control for the infrared-active thermal resistance device to maintain its sensitivity (paragraphs 0081-0090). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Marcel with Palanchoke , since the vanadium oxide layer taught by Marcel allows for controlling the thermal sensitivity for the thermal resistance device of Palanchoke . Regarding claim s 3 and 12 , Palanchoke teaches metal material (112) being composed of titanium (bottom of 6 th page). Claims 4- 7 and 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Palanchoke in view of Marcel as applied to claim 3 and 12 above, and further in view of Nakayama (JPH10185644; machine translation attached). Regarding claim s 4 , 6 and 13 , Palanchoke and Marcel teach the claimed invention except for an area occupied by the stress control pattern in a region where the stress control pattern is formed is 40% to 60%. Nakayama teaches the metal element formed in the Peano curve that fills the square finely ( transforming a Peano curve, which is a square planar filing curve into a rectangle ) in the order of one-third to up to two-third of the square (paragraphs 0018 to 0032) for the purpose of improving sensor response (sensitivity and responsiveness). It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to combine the teachings of Nakayama with Palanchoke and Marcel, since controlling the pattern area taught by Nakayama will increase the sensor response for the resistance device of Palanchoke and Marcel. Regarding claim 5, Palanchoke and Marcel further teach the stress control pattern (metal element 112 ; see Palanchoke ) arranged on the silicon oxynitride layer 122 (see fig. 3). However, Palanchoke and Marcel do not teach a length of the stress control pattern being longer than the width and the thickness thereof. Nakayama teaches the metal pattern (the Peano curve) having a length longer than the width and the thickness. That is, the metal element formed in the Peano curve that fills the square finely (transforming a Peano curve, which is a square planar filing curve into a rectangle) in the order of one-third to up to two-third of the square improves the sensor response (sensitivity and responsiveness) by increasing the sensing surface. It would have been obvious to one skilled in the art before the effective filing date of the current invention to combine the teachings of Nakayama with Palanchoke and Marcel, since the lengthy metal pattern taught by Nakayama improves the sensor response by increasing the sensing area for the resistance device of Palanchoke and Marcel. Regarding claim 7, Palanchoke teaches the MIM structure having a TCR of about 1-5% (top paragraph of 9 th page). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8 and 9 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claim 8, the prior art does not teach or suggest the thermal resistance device having an electrode layer formed on the first protective layer and electrically connected to the vanadium oxide layer while passing through the first protective layer; an infrared absorption layer formed on the second protective layer over the vanadium oxide layer; and a bonding wire electrically connecting a portion of the electrode layer exposed outside the second protective layer to an external connection terminal. Claim 9 depends on claim 8. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Yon et al. and Behammer teach thermal sensor s made of vanadium oxide. Frey et al. teaches a thermal detector with encapsulation layer. Cattaneo et al. teaches a flow detector having a Peano curves. Taguchi et al. and Endo et al. teach thin film thermal sensors. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT KYUNG S LEE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1994 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT 7AM-3PM M-F . 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 Renee Luebke can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT 571-272-2009 . 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. /KYUNG S LEE/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2833