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 certified copies of papers required by 37 CFR 1.55. 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. Claim 12 is 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. Claim 12 recites “a transparent conductive metal oxide such as tin dioxide.” The phrase "such as" renders the claim indefinite because it is unclear whether the limitations following the phrase are part of the claimed invention. See MPEP § 2173.05(d). The examiner suggest s the phrase “ such as tin dioxide ” is removed, or amended as “a transparent conductive metal oxide wherein the transparent conductive metal oxide is tin dioxide . ” Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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 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. Claims 1- 3 and 1 2 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Kimura (U.S. Patent No. 8,354,674 ) . Regarding to claim 1, Kimura teaches an interconnection structure comprising: a substrate formed by a first electrically insulating and optically transparent material, the substrate comprising a first face and an opposite second face, the first face defining a plane of the substrate ( Fig. 6 , element 401 ; column 23 , line 60-62 ); a plurality of transparent electrodes ( Fig. 6, elements 601 on top surface of substrate 401 and in holes 501 ; column 24, lines 49-51, 57-58 , indium tin oxide (ITO) is transparent electrode ); wherein the plurality of transparent electrodes pass through the substrate from the first face to the second face of the substrate in parallel to each other, and are electrically insulated from each other by the first electrically insulating and optically transparent material (Fig. 6 ). Regarding to claim 2, Kimura teaches each transparent electrode comprises a first portion disposed on the first face of the substrate (Fig. 6 ). Regarding to claim 3, Kimura teaches each transparent electrode further comprises a second portion disposed on the second face of the substrate facing the first portion (Fig. 6). Regarding to claim 12, Kimura teaches the transparent electrodes are formed by a transparent conductive polymer or a transparent conductive metal oxide ( column 24, lines 57-58 ). Regarding to claim 13, Kimura teaches a method for manufacturing an interconnection structure comprising: providing a substrate formed by a first electrically insulating and optically transparent material, the substrate comprising a first face and an opposite second face, the first face defining a plane of the substrate (Fig. 4A, element 401 ; column 23, line 60-62) ; arranging, in the substrate, a plurality of through-cavities, passing through the substrate between the first face and the second face of the substrate in parallel to each other, and being spaced apart from each other ( Fig. 4B, element s 501 ), and forming, in the through-cavities, a plurality of transparent electrodes, said transparent electrodes passing through the substrate from the first face to the second face of the substrate in parallel to each other, and being electrically insulated from each other by the first electrically insulating and optically transparent material ( Fig. 6, elements 601 on top surface of substrate 401 and in holes 501 ; column 224, lines 49-51, 57-58, indium tin oxide (ITO) is transparent electrode ) ). Claims 1- 2 and 11 - 13 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Sawayama et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,376,271 ) . Regarding to claim 1, Sawayama teaches an interconnection structure comprising: a substrate formed by a first electrically insulating and optically transparent material, the substrate comprising a first face and an opposite second face, the first face defining a plane of the substrate (Fig. 2(e), element 3 ; column 9 , line 5 2 ) ; a plurality of transparent electrodes (Fig. 2(e), elements 5 ; column 9, line 55-5 7 , indium tin oxide (ITO) is transparent electrode (column 1, lines 23-24) ) ; wherein the plurality of transparent electrodes pass through the substrate from the first face to the second face of the substrate in parallel to each other, and are electrically insulated from each other by the first electrically insulating and optically transparent material (Fig. 2(e), the transparent electrodes 5 pass through the substrate 3 from the top face to the bottom face of the substrate 3 , in parallel to each other, and electrically insulated from each other by substrate 3 ) . Regarding to claim 2 , Sawayama teaches each transparent electrode comprises a first portion disposed on the first face of the substrate (Fig. 2(e)). Regarding to claim 1 1, Sawayama teaches the transparent electrodes are identical in size and shape and have, in the plane of the substrate, a first repeat pitch in a first direction and a second repeat pitch in a second direction intersecting the first direction ( when view from top, the pixels are identical in size and shape and have repeat pitch along x and y directions, thus the transparent electrodes are identical in size and shape and have, in the plane of the substrate, a first repeat pitch in a first direction and a second repeat pitch in a second direction intersecting the first direction ). Regarding to claim 12, Sawayama teaches the transparent electrodes are formed by a transparent conductive polymer or a transparent conductive metal oxide ( elements 5; column 9, line 55-57 , ITO is a transparent conductive metal oxide ). Regarding to claim 1 3 , Sawayama teaches a method for manufacturing an interconnection structure comprising: providing a substrate formed by a first electrically insulating and optically transparent material, the substrate comprising a first face and an opposite second face, the first face defining a plane of the substrate (Fig. 2(b), element 3 ; column 9, line 52) ; arranging, in the substrate, a plurality of through-cavities, passing through the substrate between the first face and the second face of the substrate in parallel to each other, and being spaced apart from each other (Fig. 2(c); column 9, lines 52-54) , and forming, in the through-cavities, a plurality of transparent electrodes, said transparent electrodes passing through the substrate from the first face to the second face of the substrate in parallel to each other, and being electrically insulated from each other by the first electrically insulating and optically transparent material (Fig. 2(b), elements 5 ; column 9, line 55-57, indium tin oxide (ITO) is transparent electrode (column 1, lines 23-24) ) . 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. Claims 1- 4 and 9-12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Gozu et al. (U.S. Patent No. 10,262,946 ) in view of Sawayama et al. (U.S. Patent No. 6,376,271 ) . Regarding to claim 1, Gozu teaches an interconnection structure comprising: a substrate formed by a first electrically insulating and optically transparent material, the substrate comprising a first face and an opposite second face, the first face defining a plane of the substrate (Fig. 4C, element 20 ; column 14, line 5); a plurality of electrodes (Fig. 4C, element 2 1 ; column 14, line 5); wherein the plurality of transparent electrodes pass through the substrate from the first face to the second face of the substrate in parallel to each other, and are electrically insulated from each other by the first electrically insulating and optically transparent material (Fig.4C). Gozu does not disclose the electrodes are transparent electrodes . Sawayama discloses a plurality of transparent electrodes (Fig. 2(e), elements 5 ; column 9, line 55-57, indium tin oxide (ITO) is transparent electrode (column 1, lines 23-24) ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Gozu in view of Sawayama to select a transparent material for making the electrodes in order to make the interconnection structure s useful for optical applications in optical field . Regarding to claim 2 , Gozu as modified discloses each transparent electrode comprises a first portion disposed on the first face of the substrate (Fig 4C). Regarding to claim 3 , Gozu as modified discloses each transparent electrode further comprises a second portion disposed on the second face of the substrate facing the first portion (Fig 4C). Regarding to claim 4 , Gozu as modified discloses the transparent electrodes are symmetrical relative to a plane parallel to the plane of the substrate (Fig 4C). Regarding to claim 9 , Gozu as modified discloses the substrate has, between the first face and the second face of the substrate, a thickness of between 60 μm and 1000 μm (column 4, lines 1-2). The claimed range is narrow than the disclosed range, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the thickness of the substrate to be between 50 μm and 300 μm in order to make the interconnection structure useful for more optical applications, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) . Regarding to claim 10 , Gozu as modified discloses the transparent electrodes are spaced apart from each other inside the substrate by an edge-to-edge distance (Fig. 4C). Gozu is silent as to a range of the distance, however, it would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art at the time the invention was filed to configure the transparent electrodes to be spaced apart from each other inside the substrate by an edge-to-edge distance of between 5 μm and 30 μm in order to make the interconnection structure useful for more optical applications, since it has been held that where the general conditions of a claim are disclosed in the prior art, discovering the optimum or workable ranges involves only routine skill in the art. In re Aller, 105 USPQ 233 (CCPA 1955) . Regarding to claim 1 1 , Gozu as modified discloses the transparent electrodes are identical in size and shape and have, in the plane of the substrate, a first repeat pitch in a first direction and a second repeat pitch in a second direction intersecting the first direction (Fig. 4C). Regarding to claim 1 2 , Gozu as modified discloses the transparent electrodes are formed by a transparent conductive polymer or a transparent conductive metal oxide ( Sawayama , elements 5; column 9, line 55-57 , ITO is a transparent conductive metal oxide ). Claims 5- 8 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Kimura (U.S. Patent No. 8,354,674 ), as applied to claim 1 above, in view of Gluschenkov et al. (U.S. Patent No. 9,917,060 ) . Regarding to claim 5 , Kimura does not disclose each transparent electrode comprises a hollow cylindrical portion extending from the first face to the second face of the substrate, the interconnection structure further comprising a transparent core disposed inside the hollow cylindrical portion of each transparent electrode. Gluschenkov disclose s each transparent electrode comprises a hollow cylindrical portion extending from the first face to the second face of the substrate, the interconnection structure further comprising a transparent core disposed inside the hollow cylindrical portion of each transparent electrode ( Fig. 20, column 8, lines 58-60 ). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Kimura in view of Gluschenkov to comprise a hollow cylindrical portion extending from the first face to the second face of the substrate in each transparent electrode and dispose a transparent core inside the hollow cylindrical portion of each transparent electrode in order to reduce mismatch stress, thus to increase reliability. Regarding to claim 6 , Gluschenkov discloses the transparent core is formed by an electrically conductive and optically transparent material (Fig. 20, column 8, lines 58-60). Regarding to claim 7, Gluschenkov discloses the transparent core is formed by a second electrically insulating and optically transparent material (Fig. 20, element 1502 ). Regarding to claim 8 , Gluschenkov discloses the hollow cylindrical portion has, in a plane parallel to the plane of the substrate, external dimensions of between 5 μm and 50 μm , and comprises a wall with a thickness of between 5 nm and 100 nm (column 8, lines 51-52 ). Allowable Subject Matter Claims 14-17 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. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding to claim 16 ( which is dependent from claim 1) , the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “ an electro-optical device disposed facing the second face of the substrate, the electro-optical device having a plurality of control electrodes disposed facing the plurality of through-electrodes of the interconnection structure, each control electrode of the plurality of control electrodes being connected to a through electrode of the plurality of through-electrodes, so that the electro-optical device modulates the light wave transmitted by the sample under the effect of the electrical signal of the sample” in combination with the limitations recited in claim 1 and the rest of limitations recited in claim 16. Regarding to claim 14 (which is dependent from claim 13) , the prior art fails to anticipate or render obvious the claimed limitations including “ depositing a first layer of electrically conductive and optically transparent material onto the inner surface of each of the through-cavities, the first face of the substrate, and the second face of the substrate; filling the through-cavities with a transparent material and forming an extra thickness of the transparent material on the first and second faces of the substrate, and removing the extra thickness of the transparent material as well as portions of the first layer of electrically conductive and optically transparent material deposited onto the first face and the second face of the substrate ” in combination with the limitations recite d in claim 13 . Pertinent Art For the benefits of the Applicant, US-11195878-B2 , US-20030098942-A1 , US-12449564-B2 , US-9513195-B2 , US-10739654-B2 , US-11567387-B2 , US-6674506-B2 , and US-20170287728-A1 , and cited on the record as being pertinent to significant disclosure through some but not all claimed features of the defined invention. These reference fails to disclose “forming, in the through-cavities, a plurality of transparent electrodes, said transparent electrodes passing through the substrate from the first face to the second face of the substrate in parallel to each other, and being electrically insulated from each other by the first electrically insulating and optically transparent material.” Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT VU A VU whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-7467 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 8:00AM - 5:00PM . 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 CHAD M DICKE can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-7996 . 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. /VU A VU/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2897