Office Action Analysis: 18391643 — Quantum Dipole Battery

Office Action

§103 §112 §DP
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 .

Specification
35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C.  112, requires the specification to be written in “full, clear, concise, and exact terms.” The specification is replete with terms which are not clear, concise and exact. The specification should be revised carefully in order to comply with 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or pre-AIA  35 U.S.C.  112. Examples of some unclear, inexact or verbose terms used in the specification are, and are not limited to:
“Main use” in paragraph 3 of the instant specification, appears that it should be “Many use”, in context of the sentence
“fabricating a layer of quantum well and a layer of quantum barrier, respectively” (paragraph 4) should use the plurals of wells and barriers, respectively
“having a thickness on nanometer scale” (paragraph 13) should read “ having a thickness on the nanometer scale”
“Are” is mis-capitalized in paragraph 14
“A width of the pulse” in paragraph 34 should be clarified as a duration
“The quantum well is made of semiconductor, conductor materials and/or quantum dots materials” (paragraph 56) should be adjusted to semiconductors and quantum dot materials, respectively
“in the range of nanometer scale” (paragraph 57) should be reworded
Paragraph 58 and paragraph 77 each read, in part “A charge carrier transportation can…”.  This should be changed to something like “Charge carrier transportation …”.
In paragraph 64, first sentence, the article “the” is missing before the “Schrödinger Equation”.  This occurs elsewhere, like paragraph 69.
The use of 2+1 (paragraph 65, and beyond) is not the clearest descriptor.  
“The localized dipole functions” in paragraph 72 appears like it should be “The localized dipole wave functions”.
The examiner recommends rereading and revising the instant specification accordingly for the errors like those mentioned above, without introducing new matter.   

Claim Interpretation
Regarding claim 2, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the multilayer structure is a quantum superlattice structure which comprises a Distributed Bragg Reflector (DRB) or a reflector layer made from one or more insulator materials, a thickness of the reflector layer being in a micrometer range. For the purposes of claim interpretation, the DRB of this claim is interpreted, in view of paragraph 15 of the instant specification, as a portion of the multilayered structure, composed of the same materials.  
The same interpretation is extended to claim 3, for the “second DRB”.

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.


Claims 14, 18-19, and 32 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.
Regarding claim 14, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein a magnitude of a thickness of the quantum well layers is close to a de Broglie wavelength such that a corresponding electronic wave function is represented by a quantum harmonic wavefunction, and as the magnitude of thickness is in the nanometer scale, the eigen energy levels become quantized and discrete and are size dependent.  The term “close” in claim 14 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “close” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, there is no reference point as to how "close" the thickness of the quantum well layers are to the de Broglie wavelength.  For the purposes of examination, the term "close" will be interpreted as plus or minus an order of magnitude of the thickness.
Regarding claim 18, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein excitonic transition dipoles and phonon transition dipoles are created in the superlattice with an applied electric field, and characteristics of the excitonic transition dipoles of the quantum wells are uniquely determined by specific properties of the superlattice, the transition dipole characteristic of the polarized wavefunctions of optical phonons being a unique property of the quantum barriers in the superlattice, which is induced by the applied electric field.  The limitation "”the transition dipole” of the last limitation does not have sufficient antecedent basis for this limitation in the claim, as it is unclear if it refers to the excitonic transition dipoles or the phonon transition dipoles. For the purposes of claim interpretation, it will be interpreted as an excitonic transition dipole, in view of paragraph 24 of the instant specification.
Regarding claim 19, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein a charging process occurs by applying an external power through the electrodes such that supplied energy from an external power source is transferred to the quantum superlattice in the multilayer structure by means of hopping/or tunneling conduction, a nonadiabatic excitonic dipole, and/or a phonon dipole creation mechanism, and a propagation of excitonic and ionic dipolar wavefunctions, wherein a physical mechanism transferring the electric energy from the power source to the superlattice includes employing a polaronic/Wannier-Stark hopping conduction mechanism, a quantum tunneling, a nonadiabatic transition, and/or Rabi oscillation in the superlattice structure, where the electron conduction by hopping through the ionic barrier layer is assisted by an optical phonon of a coherent state and a thermal stimulation.  The limitation describing how the external power is transferred to the superlattice is described as both occurring through a “hopping/or tunneling conduction, a nonadiabatic excitonic dipole, and/or a phonon dipole creation mechanism” and “polaronic/Wannier-Stark hopping conduction mechanism, a quantum tunneling, a nonadiabatic transition, and/or Rabi oscillation in the superlattice structure”.  It is unclear which set of limitations this mechanism actually corresponds to, and why the lists should be different.  For the purposes of examination, this will be interpreted as any of the above mechanisms, regardless of which list they come from.  
Regarding claim 32, the instant claim is to the quantum dipole battery of claim 31, wherein charge carriers are released from the bound states and excited to conduction bands by the trigger power and generate voltaic power with an oscillating electric field or pulse electric field in the superlattice, and voltaic power appears on the electrodes when the battery cell is activated for discharge by the trigger power, where the trigger power is a DC pulse power of higher voltage and fast rise time, and a width of the pulse is in a range of nanosecond, pulse being applied to the battery cell through the negative and positive electrodes for discharge, where the released power from the battery cell is harvested and fed back to the input process at a feedback device.  The term “fast” in claim 32 is a relative term which renders the claim indefinite. The term “fast” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. Therefore, there is no reference point as to how ".

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:
Determining the scope and contents of the prior art.
Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue.
Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art.
Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness.

Claims 1-8, 11-31 and 33 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lie (US 20180025851 A1), and further in view of Little Jr. (US 5965899 A).
Regarding claim 1, the instant claim is drawn to a quantum dipole battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a multilayer structure, disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, the multilayer structure defining a quantum superlattice that comprises a plurality of bilayers, each bilayer including: a quantum well layer; and a quantum barrier layer, the quantum well layer being separated from and coupled to an adjacent quantum well layer by the quantum barrier layer, wherein: the multilayer structure defines a microcavity comprising quantum well layers and quantum barrier layers, each having a thickness of nanometer scale; incident quantum electric dipolar waves are reflected and confined in the microcavity of the multilayer structure, the microcavity providing confinement of excitonic and ionic dipolar waves (E.I.D. waves); excitons and indirect excitons are created due to the coupling between the adjacent quantum wells or a Rabi oscillation mechanism or in the quantum barrier layer or its surfaces which are sandwiched by the quantum well layers, adjacent quantum wells and barriers being coupled together with quantum E.I.D. waves in the quantum superlattice through a long range phase correlation, electronic charges being transported by a phonon-assisted quantum tunneling or a hopping mechanism through the quantum barrier layers; the coupling of adjacent quantum well layers and quantum barrier layers results in a dipole-dipole interaction between excitonic dipoles and ionic dipoles with confinement of quantum dipoles in an area of quantum wells and quantum barriers in the microcavity; and the multilayer structure has a pseudo-one-dimensional structure in a longitudinal direction to two-dimensional horizontal layers which are stacked in that direction, and the E.I.D. waves can be reflected in the longitudinal direction and confined in the microcavity. 
Lie teaches an electric energy storage device ([0011]) consisting of a multilayer composed of millions of bilayers ([0016]) composed of a first conductor layer, a second conductive layer and an ionic material sandwiched between them ([0015]).  Lie teaches the device has a positive electrode attached to the first conductive layer of the multilayered structure ([0017]) and a negative electrode attached to the last conductive layer of the multilayered structure ([0018]).  Lie teaches ach of the first and second conductor layers may be two-dimensional with a nanometer-scale thickness ([0025]), and the ionic material layer disposed in-between is also has a nano-scale thickness ([0019]).  Lie teaches this structure creates a multilayered structure that creates a quantum well heterostructure ([0072]) and the ionic material layer (also referred to as a dipole material layer) is electrically insulating ([0064]).  The examiner notes the conductive layers are equivalent to the quantum well layers of the instant claim, and the ionic/dipole material layers match the quantum barrier layer of the instant claim.  This creates a quantum dipole system of excitons and ions ([0066]), making this match a “quantum dipole battery”.  Lie also teaches the first and second conductor layers are stacked on top of each other and in between the dipole or ionic material layer is sandwiched, so as to form a 2+1 dimensional multilayer, wherein each of the first and second conductor layers and the dipole or ionic material layer is 2-dimensional and forms a plane sheet which is not bent because of a dipole-dipole interaction depending on the directions of the dipoles, and a bending the sheet may change the interaction, and wherein the dipole-dipole interaction between excitonic dipole and ionic dipole is quasi one dimensional (Claim 4).  
 Lie also teaches that, upon the introduction of an external electric field, quantum dipoles are induced across the multilayer structure in the form of electronic dipoles and ionic dipoles (Claims 1 and 6).  This functionally creates electron-hole pairs that propagate vertically through the multilayered structure ([0107] and Claim 7), leading to the formation of excitons ([0112]-[0114]) and indirect excitons ([0116]), which Lie terms a “pseudo-spin wave” (Claim 7).  Lie also teaches the multilayer transforms to an excited bipolar on and an anti-ferroelectric structure by polaron interactions and Coulombic interactions within the bilayer ([0107]-[0108] and Claim 8).  The examiner notes that, in the instant specification, the “exciton and ionic dipole waves” (“E.I.D. waves”) is the result of a coherence of a state that is stabilized through a “structural phase transition” by the activation of the Coulombic interactions between ionic and electronic dipoles (paragraph 89).   The examiner notes that the “pseudo-spin waves” noted by Lie is functionally identical to the “E.I.D. waves” of the instant claim.  The examiner notes this also teaches that excitons and indirect excitons are created, at the very least, though coupling between adjacent quantum wells (Claims 6 and 7), and are confined within the microcavities formed between the quantum wells and the quantum barriers.
The instant specification specifies that a battery cell formed by the multilayer structure acts as a Distributed Bragg Reflector that reflects incident dipolar waves (paragraph 36), caused by the periodicity of the layers (paragraph 39).  Lie teaches a functionally identical multilayer structure with a periodic structure (see Figure 1, reproduced below, for the alternating layers, which the examiner notes is periodic).  As such, since Lie teaches an equivalent periodic multilayers structure, it also inherently acts as a Distributed Bragg Reflector, which can reflect waves, such as the incident dipolar waves and E.I.D. waves.  See MPEP 2112.01 (I).   

    PNG
    media_image1.png
    429
    548
    media_image1.png
    Greyscale

Figure 1, reproduced from Lie.
 Lie does not explicitly teach how electronic charges are transported through the quantum barrier layers.  Lie teaches that quantum dots are located on the surface of the conductor layer ([0068]), and electric charge can be easily localized in the quantum dots, making interactions with polarons more effective ([0068]).  Lie notes that the application of an external field results in an excitation that creates a polarization of ions and an excitation of valence electrons to conduction band create a collective dipole in the multilayer system through a propagation of a dipole field (pseudo spin wave) from the electrodes to the empty states ([0075]).  The collective dipoles match the definition of a phonon, as they are a collective excitation of the quantum wells.  Given there are insulating regions dispersed between quantum well layers, the examiner reasons that the excitation of the valence electrons into the collective conductive band would need to occur through a tunneling process, but Lie does not explicitly mention this process occurs.  
Little Jr. teaches a semiconductor device for detecting radiation includes a plurality of quantum well layers, each of which has bound ground and excited states, interleaved with a plurality of superlattice barrier layers, each of which has a miniband of energy states (Abstract).  Little Jr. teaches that, when a bias is applied in a quantum well infrared photodetector, electrons can jump into the excited states upon absorption of photons having the proper energy and can tunnel through the barriers separating the wells; these electrons are collected as a current ([008]; Figure 8a, annotated below).  Little Jr. notes the amount of tunneling can be tuned by the adjusting the thickness of the superlattice barrier layers, which Little Jr. does to prevent tunneling without the application of a bias ([015]).  

    PNG
    media_image2.png
    416
    745
    media_image2.png
    Greyscale

Figure 8a, reproduced from Little Jr., annotated by the examiner.

Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism.  Little Jr. teaches precedent in the field of quantum superlattices that, under a bias, electrons can be excited into the conduction band which can tunnel through the barriers disposed next to a quantum well.  Lie notes a similar excitation creates a polarization of ions and an excitation of valence electrons to conduction band create a collective dipole in the multilayer system through a propagation of a dipole field (pseudo spin wave) from the electrodes to the empty states ([0075]).  These collective dipoles and collective excitation meet the definition of a phonon, and the delocalization of the electrons, as evidenced by Little Jr. occurs via a tunneling mechanism.  Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that electrons (which are charged) are transported through quantum barrier layers of Lie through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, based on the teachings of Little Jr. who teaches a base tunneling mechanism with a similarly structured device.  

Regarding claim 2, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the multilayer structure is a quantum superlattice structure which comprises a Distributed Bragg Reflector (DRB) or a reflector layer made from one or more insulator materials, a thickness of the reflector layer being in a micrometer range. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  As described in claim 1, Lie teaches a functionally identical multilayered structure formed with a period (Figure 1) to the instant claim, and the instant specification specifies that a battery cell formed by the instant multilayer structure acts as a Distributed Bragg Reflector, caused by the periodicity of its layers (paragraph 39).  Since the structure taught by Lie inherently acts as a Distributed Bragg Reflector, and the structure is formed of millions of bilayers, the structure of Lie has a plurality of stacked DRBs.  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 3, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 2, wherein the quantum superlattice structure further comprises a second DRB or a second reflector layer made from one or more insulator materials, the DRB or reflector layer and the second DRB or second reflector layer sandwiching the plurality of bilayers. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 2.  As described in claims 1 and 2, Lie teaches a functionally identical multilayered structure formed with a period (Figure 1) to the instant claim, and the instant specification specifies that a battery cell formed by the instant multilayer structure acts as a Distributed Bragg Reflector, caused by the periodicity of its layers (paragraph 39).  Since the structure taught by Lie inherently acts as a Distributed Bragg Reflector, and the structure is formed of millions of bilayers, the structure of Lie has a plurality of stacked DRBs, and the external most bilayers, which act as DRBs, sandwich the rest of the plurality of bilayers.  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 4, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the multilayer structure comprises millions of the bilayers. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches the multilayer structure comprises millions of the bilayers ([0016]).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 5, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the quantum well layers are nanosized layers comprising a conductor, a semimetal, a semiconductor, or a quantum dot material. 
 Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches the quantum well layers are conductors ([0021]).
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 6, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the quantum barrier layers are nanosized layers comprising an ionic material, a polar molecule, a dielectric material, or an electrically polarizable material, which are adapted to become polarized in response to an applied field. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches the barrier layers are ionic materials ([0022]).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 7, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode and the negative electrode are configured to be attached to corresponding metal sheets, the corresponding metal sheets having been coated with at least one of activated carbon powder, graphite, or graphene. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches the electrodes which are attached to a copper (conductor) sheet ([0071]), and the conductive sheet may include activated carbons, electrically polarizable ionic materials, graphenes, carbon nanotubes, or any kind of conducting materials that are nanometer-scale and suitable to get doped with an ionic material for a conductor layer, ionic polymers, and ionic minerals ([0086]).  The examiner notes the latter portion would reasonably include graphite, as it is a stacked orientation of graphene. Lie teaches the conductor layer is attached to the electrode sheet ([0071]) which is made of graphene ([0021] and [0030]).  Therefore, the conductor sheet is coated with a graphene layer.  
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 8, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the multilayer structure is manufactured by utilizing molecular beam epitaxy, chemical vapor deposition, 3D printing technique, or a slurry mixing technique on a bulk scale to produce the multilayered structure. 
 Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches each of the first and second conductor may be grown by a molecular beam epitaxy or metal-organic chemical vapor deposition ([0100]), and the conductor layers are coated with ionic materials or dipole materials with which cover the entire layer surface ([0111]).  Additionally, Lie teaches the interval between the conductor layers in the bilayer and the thickness of conductor layer should be a nanometer size to introduce a quantum hetero-structure which may be grown by molecular beam epitaxy and metal-organic chemical vapor deposition ([0111]).  The examiner notes that the hetero-structure used here matches the superlattice structure of the instant application, which makes up the multilayer structure of the instant claim.  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 11, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the multilayer structure is comprised of millions of the bilayers, each bilayer being composed of a semiconductor layer and an ionic layer, wherein: the stack of bilayers is a superlattice; the semiconductor layer is a quantum well of the superlattice; and the superlattice structure can be fabricated by stacking layers alternatively from different materials with a period. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches the multilayer structure is composed of millions of bilayers (Claim 1), the bilayer hetero-structure (“a superlattice”) is comprised of the first and second conductor layers and the ionic material layer sandwiched therebetween them (Claim 1).  These are stacked with a period (Figure 1, above).  Lie teaches each of the first and second conductor layers may be made from one selected from the group consisting of open structured activated carbon powder, carbon nano tube, and graphene ([0030]) and may additionally include activated carbons, electrically polarizable ionic materials, graphenes, carbon nanotubes, or any kind of conducting materials that are nanometer-scale and suitable to be coated by the ionic layer ([0085]).  The examiner notes that graphite, which is stacked layers of graphene, can be reasonably assumed to fall under this category, as a particular orientation of graphene.   The instant specification states that the quantum well layer is a semiconductor and is made of graphite and graphene (paragraph 22), which makes the “conductor layers” of Lie semiconductors, as defined by the instant specification.  
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 12, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the quantum well layer of the bilayer is a nanosized layer made of a conductor, semimetal, direct transition semiconductor, indirect transition semiconductor, or quantum dot material, and the quantum well layer is made of activated carbon, graphite, graphene, or nanotubes. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches the quantum well layers are conductors ([0021]) and are made out of open structured activated carbon powder, carbon nano tube, and graphene ([0030]).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 13, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the quantum barrier layer is a thin layer made of ionic molecules, polar molecules, dielectric materials, electrically polarizable materials, or mineral materials, the polarizable materials including at least one of electronic polarization, ionic polarization, dipolar molecule polarization, or space charge polarization materials, and the ionic polarization materials including at least one of magnesium sulfate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium carbonate, cesium bicarbonate, cesium carbonate, lithium carbonate, potassium carbonate, rubidium carbonate, ionomers(ionic polymer), an alum, or a mineral. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches the barrier layers are ionic materials ([0022]), which includes  MgSO4, LiPF6, LiClO4, LiN(CF3SO2)2, LiBF4, LiCF3SO3, LiSbF6, Li4Ti5O12.  The examiner notes magnesium sulfate is listed in the instant claim as an example of a ionic polarization material.  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 14, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein a magnitude of a thickness of the quantum well layers is close to a de Broglie wavelength such that a corresponding electronic wave function is represented by a quantum harmonic wavefunction, and as the magnitude of thickness is in the nanometer scale, the eigen energy levels become quantized and discrete and are size dependent. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches the layers are on the nanometer scale ([0019] and [0025]).  The examiner notes the nanometer thickness of the layers is about an order of magnitude away from the de Broglie wavelength of an electron.  The examiner also notes that, by being a quantum well, the electronic wavefunction results in discrete energy levels that are quantized and are equivalent to the solutions of the quantum harmonic oscillator; this is evidenced by Townsend (“Quantum Physics, University Science Books, 2010; Henceforth, Townsend).  The examiner notes that the spacings of the wells necessarily changes the resulting energy levels since the energy levels in a particle-in-a-box, which mirrors quantum well, is represented by                         
                            
                                
                                    E
                                
                                
                                    n
                                
                            
                            =
                            
                                
                                    1
                                
                                
                                    2
                                    m
                                
                            
                            
                                
                                    
                                        
                                            
                                                
                                                    π
                                                    n
                                                    ħ
                                                
                                                
                                                    a
                                                
                                            
                                        
                                    
                                
                                
                                    2
                                
                            
                        
                     where a is the width of the box/well, and n is the discrete energy state (Townsend , page 117) .
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 15, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the superlattice is a periodic heterostructure comprised of alternating different types of layers, which are semiconductor layers and ionic layers, wherein: the semiconductor layer is a quantum well and the ionic layer is a barrier of a superlattice; the quantum well layer is made of graphite and graphene, and the ionic layer is made of at least one of sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, or magnesium sulfate(Epsomite); and a thickness of the quantum well and barrier layers is nanosized in the superlattice structure, so that the superlattice provides three forms of electron transportation: a miniband conduction, Wannier-Stark hopping, and phonon-assisted tunneling, providing a nonlinear behavior, a negative differential conductivity, and a superlattice current oscillation, respectively. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches the structure of the superlattice is periodic (Figure 1, above), wherein there are layers of quantum wells made out of graphene ([0030]) and graphite (“graphenes” in Claim 2; graphite is a superstructure of graphene).  The examiner notes that graphene is classified as a semiconductor in the instant specification (paragraph 22).  Lie teaches the barrier layers are ionic materials ([0022]) which can be made of magnesium sulfate ([0032]).  While Lie teaches the structure of the instant claim, Lie does not explicitly teach that the superlattice provides forms of electron transport.  
As described in claim 1, Lie in view of Little Jr. teach a structure in which phonon-assisted tunneling can occur.  Lie teaches the formation of a longitudinal optimal mode of the dipolar phonon between the conductive layers ([0089]), and the formation of holes and electrons form polarons in the bilayer ([0082]), which interact and extend to other conductive layers ([0083]).  The examiner notes this means it is not localized to a single quantum well.  The examiner notes that this quasi-continuum of states formed, as seen most clearly in Figure 8a of Little Jr., shows the quantum wells act as a miniband, and, upon excitation of elections, the electrons can be transported through the conduction band.  Lie teaches the localization of bound states upon the application of an electric field ([0024]),  Since there are localized states within the phonon, Wannier-Stark hopping is possible between the localized states, as evidenced by Emin and Hart (“Phonon-assisted hopping of an electron on a Wannier-Stark ladder in a strong electric field”, Phys. Rev. B, 1987, 36, 5, 2530; Henceforth, Emin).  Therefore, the examiner believes the means of electron transport are inherent to the structure, as evidenced by Little Jr. and Emin, and the proposed impacts of said structure, being providing a nonlinear behavior, a negative differential conductivity, and a superlattice current oscillation, respectively, are similarly inherent. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).   
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 16, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the multilayer structure is a quantum superlattice which is composed of millions of quantum wells of superlattice minibands and quantum barriers of coherent optical phonons, wherein: the minibands are originated from a periodicity of the superlattice and nanosized thickness of the barriers; wavefunctions of electrons and holes are no longer localized in a certain quantum well, but exist all over the superlattice structure, but wavefunctions of the coherent optical phonons are localized in a certain barrier layer. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches the multilayer structure is a composed of millions of bilayers of quantum wells (“conductive layers”; [0015]-[0016]) and quantum barriers (“ionic layers; [0015]).  These are arranged in a periodic manner (Figure 1, above), with each layer being nanoscale thickness ([0019] and [0021]).  Lie teaches the formation of a longitudinal optimal mode of the dipolar phonon between the conductive layers ([0089]), and the formation of holes and electrons form polarons in the bilayer ([0082]), which interact and extend to other conductive layers ([0083]).  The examiner notes this means it is not localized to a single quantum well.  The examiner notes that this quasi-continuum of states formed, as seen most clearly in Figure 8a of Little Jr., shows the quantum wells act as a miniband.  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 17, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein exciton creation in the quantum wells is induced by phonon-assisted tunneling and hopping conduction crossing the barrier layer with an external field and excitation of a valence electron leaving a hole behind, which are attractive by Coulomb force, the mechanism being strengthened by miniband formation, thermal stimulation, and/or nonadiabatic transition of a two-level system in the quantum well, the transition being induced by coherent polarized optical phonon wavefunctions, and Rabi oscillation. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  As outlined in claim 15, above, electron transport occurs via phonon-assisted tunneling and hopping conduction crossing the barrier layer with an external field.  This excitation of a valence electron necessarily generates a corresponding hole.  Lie teaches a bound state of charge polarization may be induced and created by a charge separation and an excitation of valence electron, which is an electric quantum dipole ([0024]); the examiner notes this matches the definition of the creation of an exciton.  This charge separation inherently has an attractive Columbic interaction.  The examiner notes that, while Lie does not explicitly teach that the mechanism of exciton formation is strengthened by miniband formation, thermal stimulation, and/or nonadiabatic transition of a two-level system in the quantum well, thermal stimulation, by increasing the average velocity of the particles, will increase the energy of the electrons and the statistical likelihood that they can be excited into an energy state where they are no longer singly localized to one quantum well, enabling tunneling.  Therefore, the examiner believes exciton formation caused by tunneling inherently benefits from thermal stimulation.  See MPEP 2112.01 (I).   
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 18, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein excitonic transition dipoles and phonon transition dipoles are created in the superlattice with an applied electric field, and characteristics of the excitonic transition dipoles of the quantum wells are uniquely determined by specific properties of the superlattice, the transition dipole characteristic of the polarized wavefunctions of optical phonons being a unique property of the quantum barriers in the superlattice, which is induced by the applied electric field. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches excitonic dipoles ([0075]) and phonon dipoles ([0076], in view of [0080]) are created within the superlattice with an applied electric field ([0075]).  Since Lie teaches the structure of the battery of claim 1, the uniquely determined characteristics of the excitonic transition dipoles of the quantum wells and quantum barriers are inherently taught.  See MPEP 2112.01 (I).   
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 19, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein a charging process occurs by applying an external power through the electrodes such that supplied energy from an external power source is transferred to the quantum superlattice in the multilayer structure by means of hopping/or tunneling conduction, a nonadiabatic excitonic dipole, and/or a phonon dipole creation mechanism, and a propagation of excitonic and ionic dipolar wavefunctions, wherein a physical mechanism transferring the electric energy from the power source to the superlattice includes employing a polaronic/Wannier-Stark hopping conduction mechanism, a quantum tunneling, a nonadiabatic transition, and/or Rabi oscillation in the superlattice structure, where the electron conduction by hopping through the ionic barrier layer is assisted by an optical phonon of a coherent state and a thermal stimulation. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches that, when an external field is applied, an polarization of ions and an excitation of valence electrons to conduction band creates collective dipoles in the multilayer system through a propagation of a dipole field (pseudo spin wave) from the electrodes to the empty states ([0075]).  Lie teaches the interaction terms of excitonic dipole and ionic dipole describe a propagation of pseudo spin waves across the layers in the direction vertical to the layer sheet, and, as the pseudo spin waves propagate in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure as the power continues to be provided by an external field ([0079]-[0080]).  The examiner notes this is a dipole field propagation can occur through tunneling, in a mechanism evidenced by Little Jr., and by hopping conduction, as evidenced by Emin.   While, Lie, Little Jr. nor Emin do not explicitly teach that the electron conduction by hopping through the ionic barrier layer is assisted by an optical phonon of a coherent state and a thermal stimulation, Lie teaches a quantum dipole battery of the same structure and configuration as the instant Claim 1.  Therefore, even if Lie did not know that the electron conduction by hopping through the ionic barrier layer is assisted by an optical phonon of a coherent state and a thermal stimulation, the inherent aspect did not need to be recognized at the relevant time. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  Thus, Lie inherently teaches that the electron conduction by hopping through the ionic barrier layer is assisted by an optical phonon of a coherent state and a thermal stimulation.  See MPEP 2112 (I) and (II).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 20, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein minibands of the quantum well in the superlattice structure is a two-level system as long as the excitonic dipole creation and annihilation are related, which are two energy eigenstates of the two-level system, the two-level system being decoupled from other degrees of freedom of the system in the quantum wells, the two-level system being a pair of conduction and valence bands which is separated from other energy bands in this specific kind of quantum superlattice so that the two-level system is feasible energetically in creation of the excitonic dipoles in the quantum wells with an applied external electric field. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches excitonic dipoles ([0075]) and phonon dipoles ([0076], in view of [0080]) are created within the superlattice with an applied electric field ([0075]), forming a two-level system ([0078]).  Lie teaches that the ionic dipole and exciton density should be appropriately low because a high density causes to destroy the dipoles ([0140]), suggesting the creation and annihilation of excitonic dipoles are related. Lie teaches the superlattice has a “2+1 dimension” for a dipole-dipole interaction which is considered separately in vertical and horizontal direction to the 2 dimensional plane ([0023]), such that the quantum wells have quasi one-dimensional interaction in the vertical direction to the layers ([0076]); the examiner notes this means the wells are free from other degrees of freedom in this system.  Lie teaches that, when a field is applied, an polarization of ions and an excitation of valence electrons to conduction band create collective dipoles in the multilayer system ([0075]).  The examiner notes that the conduction band matches the excited state, while the ground state would reasonably match the valence band of the instant claim.  The examiner notes the “collective dipoles” refer to excitonic and ionic dipoles, which are described immediately after the above statement ([0076]).  Therefore, while Lie doesn’t explicitly mention conduction and valence bands which is separated from other energy bands in this specific kind of quantum superlattice, this is further evidenced by Little Jr., showing each quantum well is a 2-state system (Figure 1a, reproduced below).  

    PNG
    media_image3.png
    150
    557
    media_image3.png
    Greyscale

Figure 1a, reproduced from Little Jr.
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 21, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein valence electrons can jump to the conduction band by a nonadiabatic transition with the applied field to form the excitonic states in the two-level system by means of Rabi oscillation mechanism, excitonic state formation in the quantum wells and superlattice occurring by a hopping conduction mechanism through the barrier layer is strengthened by a thermal stimulation and the polarized optical phonon, and excitonic excitation and its propagation in the quantum superlattice structure being processed by a polaronic hopping conduction and a phonon assisted quantum tunnelling, where the excitonic wavefunctions can propagate through potential barriers from a quantum well to the next adjacent quantum well. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches that, when an external field is applied, an polarization of ions and an excitation of valence electrons to conduction band creates collective dipoles in the multilayer system through a propagation of a dipole field (pseudo spin wave) from the electrodes to the empty states ([0075]).  Lie teaches the interaction terms of excitonic dipole and ionic dipole describe a propagation of pseudo spin waves across the layers in the direction vertical to the layer sheet, and, as the pseudo spin waves propagate in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure as the power continues to be provided by an external field ([0079]-[0080]).  The examiner notes that the propagation can occur through tunneling, in a mechanism evidenced by Little Jr., and by hopping conduction, as evidenced by Emin.  While Lie, Little Jr. and Emin do not explicitly teach that the exciton formation occurs by a hopping conduction mechanism through the barrier layer is strengthened by a thermal stimulation, and that valence electrons can jump to the conduction band by a nonadiabatic transition by means of Rabi oscillation mechanism, Lie teaches a quantum dipole battery of the same structure and configuration as the instant Claim 1.  Therefore, even if Lie did not know that the hopping conduction mechanism through the barrier layer is strengthened by a thermal stimulation, and that valence electrons can jump to the conduction band by a nonadiabatic transition by means of Rabi oscillation mechanism, the inherent aspects did not need to be recognized at the relevant time. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  Thus, Lie inherently teaches that exciton formation occurs by a hopping conduction mechanism through the barrier layer is strengthened by a thermal stimulation, and that valence electrons can jump to the conduction band by a nonadiabatic transition by means of Rabi oscillation mechanism.  See MPEP 2112 (I) and (II).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 22, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein a coherent dipolar wavefunction in the barrier layer is a displaced vibration of the optical phonon, and an excited phonon system turns, by the applied field, eventually into a dipolar phonon system of coherent state in the barrier layers, the oscillatory evolutions of the excited and polarized ionic phonons in the barrier layers being represented as wavefunctions of quantum physics, preserving specific phase and amplitude, which is a coherent state. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches that a nanometer-sized bound state of charge polarization may be induced and created by a charge separation and a longitudinal optical mode of dipolar phonon ([0089]), and the nanometer-sized bound state of charge which is a quantum dipole may be induced and created by an applied external field, and the process of a quantum dipole formation in the multilayer may be due to a dipole-dipole interaction of the electronic dipoles and ionic dipoles ([0089]).  Lie teaches the interaction of the longitudinal mode of ionic dipole vibration with the electric charge is attractive to form a polaron, and the interaction between the positive polaron and the negative polaron in the bilayer turns into an interaction between the electron and the hole mediated by longitudinal optical mode of ionic dipole vibration ([0115]).  Lie teaches how the periodic nature of the superlattice impacts polaron formation in a bilayer ([0217]-[0227]), including the wavefunction.  Per Bloch’s Theorem, the periodic nature of the structure is maintained ([0221]), thus inherently preserving phase and amplitude.  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 23, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein transition dipole systems of coherent wavefunctions continue to propagate over the superlattice structure as energy is supplied to the system, and electronic states of two-level systems interacting with the applied electric field are excited to produce excitonic dipoles in the quantum wells of the superlattice, where transition dipole moments take supplied electric energy by a nonadiabatic process. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches the interaction terms of excitonic dipole and ionic dipole describe a propagation of pseudo spin waves across the layers in the direction vertical to the layer sheet ([0079]), wherein the pseudo spin waves propagate crossing the layers by an applied power, and as the pseudo spin waves propagate in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure as the power continues to be provided by an external field. ([0080]).  Lie teaches the mechanism for the charging process is induced by a polaron interaction, and by a polaron interaction and Coulomb force, the dipoles keep transforming into the anti-ferroelectric nanostructures in charge ([0081]).  While, Lie does not explicitly teach that the transition dipole moments take supplied electric energy by a nonadiabatic process, Lie teaches a quantum dipole battery of the same structure and configuration as the instant Claim 1.  Therefore, even if Lie did not know what mechanism the transition dipole moments take supplied energy from, the inherent mechanism did not need to be recognized at the relevant time. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  Thus, Lie inherently teaches that the transition dipole moments take supplied electric energy by a nonadiabatic process.  See MPEP 2112 (I) and (II).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 24, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein excitonic dipolar oscillations are vibrations of a nucleus which are due to nonadiabatic electronic transitions, which promote a dipole wavefunction of coherent state in the quantum well, and a quantum effect of the superlattice is a standing wave formation or traveling waves in the quantum wells and the quantum barriers, the wavefunctions of localized excitonic dipole moments allowing a basis for expansion of dipole states, which are collective vibrations of coherent states in the superlattice. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie only discusses oscillations in the context of discharging their battery, and never specifically discusses vibrations within the nucleus.  Lie teaches that pseudo spin waves propagate crossing the layers by an applied power in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure as the power continues to be provided by an external field ([0080]).  Additionally, Lie teaches the mechanism for a charging process is induced by a polaron interaction, and by a polaron interaction and Coulomb force, the dipoles keep transforming into the anti-ferroelectric nanostructures in charge, and the polaron interaction is so strong that the excitons in the conductor layer have been broken into the electrons and the holes to form the positive polarons and the negative polarons in the bilayer ([0081]-[0082]).  The examiner notes the anti-ferroelectric nanostructure is the coherent state of the quantum well, and the pseudo spin wave is equivalent to the collective vibrations of coherent states in the superlattice.  While Lie does not explicitly specify that this occurs through a nonadiabatic coupling process, Lie teaches a quantum dipole battery of the same structure and configuration as the instant Claim 1.  Therefore, even if Lie did not know that excitonic dipolar oscillations are vibrations of a nucleus which are due to nonadiabatic electronic transitions, the inherent mechanism did not need to be recognized at the relevant time. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  Thus, Lie inherently teaches that the excitonic dipolar oscillations are vibrations of a nucleus which are due to nonadiabatic electronic transitions.  See MPEP 2112 (I) and (II).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 25, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein nonadiabatic coupling drives quantum transitions between states of a two-level system, leading to collective vibrations of an excitonic system in the quantum well, and oscillatory evolutions of the excited electrons and the holes in the quantum wells are represented as quantum coherent wavefunctions, preserving specific phase and amplitude, which is a coherent state, where eigen-modes and energy levels are quantized and size-dependent. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches the oscillatory evolutions of the excited electrons and the holes in the quantum wells are represented as quantum coherent wavefunctions, preserving specific phase and amplitude (see claim 22 above), which necessitates that where eigen-modes and energy levels are quantized and size-dependent.   Lie teaches that, when the polaronic interaction is activated, an electron (a hole) of the excitonic dipole is pulled by the longitudinal mode of ionic dipole vibration, and the electron and the hole in the excitonic dipole are pulled away from each other and separated more by the force ([0177]).  In turn, the dissipating energy of the electrons (and holes) creates more the longitudinal motion of the ionic dipole vibration and this process keeps progressing until the excitonic binding is diminished, and the polaronic binding dominates in the bilayer ([0177]).  In this process, Lie does not explicitly specify that this occurs through a nonadiabatic coupling process.  Yet, Lie teaches a quantum dipole battery of the same structure and configuration as the instant Claim 1.  Therefore, even if Lie did not know that this occurs through a nonadiabatic coupling process, the inherent mechanism did not need to be recognized at the relevant time. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  Thus, Lie inherently teaches that nonadiabatic coupling drives quantum transitions between states of the two-level system.  See MPEP 2112 (I) and (II).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 26, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein phonon wavefunctions of a polarized and displaced vibration which is excited by an external field are optical phonons of a coherent state, and eigen modes of the phonon are quantized in the barrier layer, which is a coherent state of a displaced harmonic oscillation, and quantum barrier layers of coherent states act as microcavities that cause confinement of the optical phonon of longitudinal mode. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches when external DC field is applied in the direction vertical to the layers, pseudo spin waves propagate, crossing the layers in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure ([0165]), and the electrical charge built-up at the nodes of the wave is due to a dipole-dipole interaction of electronic and ionic dipoles ([0166]). Lie further teaches that the interactions among ionic dipoles in the multilayer arises from dipolar phonons, and their acoustic vibrations ([0212]).  The examiner notes the ionic dipoles refer to dipoles formed in the quantum barrier layer, which is a coherent state of a displaced harmonic oscillation, and, as phonons, they have quantized eigenmodes.  Additionally, the examiner notes the formed dipoles act as microcavities that confine the optical phonon in the longitudinal mode of the battery. 
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 27, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein confinement of coherent excitonic dipoles in the quantum well layer and a proximate location, and collective polarization ordering of the coherent optical phonon dipoles of the barrier layer, make a quantum dipole-dipole interaction viable, and specific quantum superlattice structures aid inducing coupling of coherent quantum dipoles. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches when external DC field is applied in the direction vertical to the layers, pseudo spin waves propagate, crossing the layers in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure ([0165]), and the electrical charge built-up at the nodes of the wave is due to a dipole-dipole interaction of electronic and ionic dipoles ([0166]). Lie further teaches that the interactions among ionic dipoles in the multilayer arises from dipolar phonons, and their acoustic vibrations ([0212]).  The examiner notes the ionic dipoles refer to dipoles formed in the quantum barrier layer and the electronic dipoles are dipoles formed within the quantum wells.  Additionally, the examiner notes the quantum well dipoles are proximate to the ionic dipoles in the quantum barrier layer.  The examiner notes the propagation occurs due to collective polarization ordering of the coherent optical phonon dipoles of the barrier layer, making the quantum dipole-dipole interaction viable, which indues coupling of coherent quantum dipoles in the subsequent layers.  
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 28, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein collective dipole fields of coherent optical phonons of a longitudinal mode in the barrier layer are coupled to transition dipoles of excitonic vibrations of the longitudinal mode in a two-level system of the quantum wells, and transition dipoles of quantum wells and transition dipoles of barriers are coupled via quantum dipole-dipole interactions. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches when external DC field is applied in the direction vertical to the layers, pseudo spin waves propagate, crossing the layers in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure ([0165]), and the electrical charge built-up at the nodes of the wave is due to a dipole-dipole interaction of electronic and ionic dipoles ([0166]). Lie further teaches that the interactions among ionic dipoles in the multilayer arises from dipolar phonons, and their acoustic vibrations ([0212]).  The examiner notes the ionic dipoles refer to dipoles formed in the quantum barrier layer and the electronic dipoles are dipoles formed within the quantum wells.  The examiner additionally notes that coherent optical phonons of a longitudinal mode in the barrier layer are coupled with the phonons (electron hole pair) of the quantum well layer, which, in view of Little Jr., is the longitudinal mode of the vibration of the two-level system of the quantum wells.
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 29, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein quantum dipole-dipole interaction between coherent excitonic wavefunctions and coherent optical phonons of longitudinal modes occurs in the heterostructures of the superlattice of the microcavity, and the interaction induces a new coupled state of exciton and phonon, the new coupled state being metastable. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches when external DC field is applied in the direction vertical to the layers, pseudo spin waves propagate, crossing the layers in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure ([0165]), and the electrical charge built-up at the nodes of the wave is due to a dipole-dipole interaction of electronic and ionic dipoles ([0166]). Lie further teaches that the interactions among ionic dipoles in the multilayer arises from dipolar phonons, and their acoustic vibrations ([0212]).  The examiner notes the ionic dipoles refer to dipoles formed in the quantum barrier layer and the electronic dipoles are dipoles formed within the quantum wells.  The examiner additionally notes that coherent optical phonons of a longitudinal mode in the barrier layer are coupled with the phonons (electron hole pair) of the quantum well layer, which, in view of Little Jr., is the longitudinal mode of the vibration of the two-level system of the quantum wells.  Lie teaches that the bilayer heterostructure is comprised of the first and second conductor layers and the ionic material layer sandwiched therebetween them (Claim 1), which the examiner notes means the interactions of the coherent excitonic wavefunctions and coherent optical phonons of longitudinal modes occurs in the heterostructures of the superlattice, in the microcavities defined by the barrier and quantum well layers.  Lie teaches this causes a transition to an antiferroelectric nanostructure in the bilayer ([0192]), which keeps the dipole system stable in the bilayer ([0193]).  
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 30, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein stable electric nano-structures are formed in the superlattice of the multilayer structure through a structural phase transition which is caused by an excitonic-ionic wavefunction of a boson bound state in the microcavity accompanying a spontaneous structural change, the spontaneous structural change being one of a Mott-insulator or Peierls or phase transition of an electric charge system by activation of the polaronic interactions, and wherein stable electric nano-structures include at least one of a ferroelectric structure, an antiferroelectric structure, a surface exciton charge double layer structure, or an electric charge double layer structure on a boundary between the quantum well and the barrier, the supplied energy being stored as an electrostatic potential energy in the nanostructures when the battery is charged. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie further teaches that the structural transition from the dipole arrays to the antiferroelectric nanostructure is induced by the excitonic bipolaron interaction and the Coulomb force between the electrons and the holes in the bilayer ([0229]).  Lie teaches the antiferroelectric nano-structure becomes stable due to the dipole-dipole interactions which are in the direction horizontal to the layers ([0230]), and the structure stores electric energy in the form of binding energy ([0180]).  The examiner notes that the process of separating an electron from the nucleus, creating a hole which forms the dipoles in the layer, creates an electrostatic potential energy, due to Coulombic interaction, which Lie mentions.  Additionally, the examiner notes that a bipolaron is formed due to a structural phase transition 
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 31, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein a transition probability amplitude of energy state in a two-level system oscillates with a Rabi frequency Ω which is proportional to an amplitude of the applied field such that electronic charges of the electric dipole systems are decoupled from the ionic dipole systems and excited to the conduction bands when a high electric field                         
                            
                                
                                    E
                                
                                →
                            
                        
                     and high power of a DC pulse or an AC applied as a trigger power for discharge. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches that a guiding AC field is applied for discharge ([0198]), and all of the electronic dipoles and ionic dipoles which are not in the antiferroelectric bound state are forced to oscillate along with the applied AC field ([0199]).  Additionally, Lie teaches that the electric dipoles which are stored inside a superstructure begin to get released in response to the applied external field from the antiferroelectric structure and turns into the excitonic dipoles and the ionic dipoles ([0200]), creating an antiparallel pseudo spin wave that releases charge to the electrodes ([0202]).  Lie teaches the oscillating dipoles interact with the oscillating electric field at resonance (Claim 19).  While Lie does not explicitly teach that the oscillation occurs with a Rabi frequency, Lie teaches a quantum dipole battery of the same structure and configuration as the instant Claim 1.  Therefore, even if Lie did not know what frequency the two-level system oscillates with, the inherent mechanism did not need to be recognized at the relevant time. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  Thus, Lie inherently teaches that the two-level system oscillates with a Rabi frequency that is proportional to an amplitude of the applied field such that electronic charges of the electric dipole systems are decoupled from the ionic dipole systems and excited to the conduction bands when a high electric field                         
                            
                                
                                    E
                                
                                →
                            
                        
                     and high power of a DC pulse or an AC applied as a trigger power for discharge.  See MPEP 2112 (I) and (II).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 33, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein oscillating power or pulse shape power released from the activated battery cell is due to an applied pulse and a collectively oscillating ionic dipole field and intrinsic properties of the superlattice, the released power being rectified to DC output power and harvested, and wherein a small portion of harvested energy is fed back for the trigger pulse generation through a feedback device and remaining harvested energy is used for other works. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches discharge is engaged with an applied external AC field ([0074]).  The external power is passed through a rectifier, and DC output voltage is measured ([0103]).  Lie teaches an embodiment where, after some power is first generated with an external AC field, a feedback system, utilizing energy from the battery is utilized to autonomously discharge the rest of the battery, where the excess energy is used for extra work (Claim 20).  The examiner notes that, since the discharge needs an external field, the energy taken through the feedback loop must power the field for the rest of the battery to discharge, in this particular embodiment.  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of Lie that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lie and Little Jr. as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Upreti (US 20140363635 A1).
Regarding claim 9, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the battery cell is fabricated by means of a slurry mixing technique with an activated carbon powder, a binder, and active materials. 
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  Lie teaches an example where the sample is made of an activated carbon powder that is mixed and coated with liquid ions, before the mixture is pressed to obtain the bilayers ([0137]).  Lie teaches that MgSO4 is mixed with oils to create the liquid ions ([0261]).  The examiner notes this is a slurry.  Lie nor Little Jr. do not teach the addition of a binder in the battery cell.  
Upreti teaches the use of biominerals within an electrochemical cell ([0008]) in order to minimize mechanical stress, peeling, and the like ([0035]) within a battery.  Upreti teaches the combination of electrochemically active materials of the battery with bone apatite to produce a new class of materials called bio-mineralized materials that can be used in batteries to obtain high energy density and specific capacity ([0040]).  The examiner notes the bone apatite serves the same function as a binder in the battery.  Additionally, Upreti states the bio-mineralized composite can be used in a quantum battery (Claim 5).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to create a quantum battery, as taught by Lie and Little Jr. a binder is included with the active material to form a battery mixture, as taught by Upreti in the same field of endeavor.  There would have been a motivation, as taught by Upreti in the same field of endeavor, to include bone apatite with battery active materials, to create a composite which enables the creation of a high energy density and specific capacity battery ([0040]) while minimizing mechanical stress, chemical deterioration, decrepitation, amorphization, peeling, resistance or impedance gain, structural disorder, voltage fade, capacity fade, degassing and the like ([0035]).  

Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lie, Little Jr. and Upreti as applied to claim 9 above, and further in view of Tai et al (“Activated carbon from the graphite with increased rate capability for the potassium ion battery”, Carbon. 2017, 123, 54-61; Henceforth, Tai).
Regarding claim 10, in instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 9, wherein the activated carbon powder is a micro-sized porous material which has graphite layers, the activated carbon powder having a large surface area due to a high degree of porosity, and wherein ionic layers are made of active materials and binders which are adsorbed into surfaces of the carbon to form a nanosized layer. 
Lie, Little Jr. and Upreti teach the battery of claim 9.  Lie teaches the activated carbon have high surface area and nanometer-sized pores ([0099]), which adsorb the ionic layer in the micro pores ([0252]).  The examiner notes micro-pores implies the structure has a high degree of porosity.  As outlined in claim 1, each of the activated carbon (“conductor”) layers and ionic layers are each nano-sized in thickness after a compression step ([0101]).  As outlined in claim 9, the active materials are in the ionic layer of Lie and binders are included with the active materials of Upreti.  Lie, Little Jr. and Upreti do not explicitly teach that the activated carbon powder is a micro-sized porous material which has graphite layers.  
Tai teaches a method of synthesizing activated carbon from graphite for use in a battery (page 50, column 1).  The morphology of the resulting product retains layered graphite (Figure 1e, reproduced below), and has a size ranging from several micrometers to several nanometers, depending on how much potassium hydroxide is used in the synthesis of the activated carbon page 50, column 2).

    PNG
    media_image4.png
    292
    813
    media_image4.png
    Greyscale

Figure 1e,  reproduced from Tai.
 Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to create the quantum battery of claim 9, as taught by Lie, Little Jr., and Upreti, wherein the activated carbon powder is a micro-sized porous material which has graphite layers, as taught by Tai in the same field of endeavor.  Tai demonstrates precedent in the art to use activated carbon made of graphite layers, and teaches it increases interplanar spacing, allowing ion diffusion to be more efficient (page 50, column 1).  There would have been a reasonable expectation by a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the use of activated carbon synthesized from graphite would have been successful, since it would be performing the same function as the activated carbon of Lie, and there would have been a predictable effect of creating a carbon material with more space between layers, allowing for better diffusion of binder and active materials around each layer of the graphite.  This would have the predictable effect of better coating and filling of the pores of the carbon material, improving upon the battery of Lie.  See MPEP  2143 (I) C.  

Claim 32 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lie and Little Jr. as applied to claim 31 above, and further in view of Eisenring (US 20100295373 A1).
Regarding claim 32, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 31, wherein charge carriers are released from the bound states and excited to conduction bands by the trigger power and generate voltaic power with an oscillating electric field or pulse electric field in the superlattice, and voltaic power appears on the electrodes when the battery cell is activated for discharge by the trigger power, where the trigger power is a DC pulse power of higher voltage and fast rise time, and a width of the pulse is in a range of nanosecond, pulse being applied to the battery cell through the negative and positive electrodes for discharge, where the released power from the battery cell is harvested and fed back to the input process at a feedback device.
Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 31.  Lie teaches that charge carriers are released from the bound states and excited to conduction bands by the trigger power ([0027]) and generate voltaic power with an oscillating electric field or pulse electric field in the superlattice, and voltaic power appears on the electrodes when the battery cell is activated for discharge by the trigger power ([0027] and [0074]).  Some of the energy is provided into a feedback system (Claim 20), and the rest is used for extra work (Claim 20).  Lie and Little Jr. do not teach the trigger power is a DC pulse power of higher voltage and fast rise time, and a width of the pulse is in a range of nanosecond, pulse being applied to the battery cell through the negative and positive electrodes for discharge.
Eisenring teaches a system with loss-less transmission of electrical energy ([0001]) wherein a quantum battery is supplied with direct voltage source to the storage cell in the form of DC current pulses corresponding to the Dirac function (Abstract and [0004]).  These pulses have a fast rise time and a higher voltage than the quantum battery (Figure 3, reproduced below).  While Eisenring states the pulses are quick ([0009]), the exact width is not specified.  

    PNG
    media_image5.png
    595
    673
    media_image5.png
    Greyscale

Figure 3, reproduced from Eisenring.
	
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to create a quantum battery, as taught by Lie and Little Jr. wherein the energy is released with DC trigger pulses with a fast rise and high voltage, as taught by Eisenring in the same field of endeavor, and using short pulses.  There would have been a motivation, as taught by Eisenring, to charge and discharge a quantum battery using Dirac function pulses of DC, in order to ensure loss-less transmission of energy ([0003]),  A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation that the quantum battery of Lie and Little Jr. could be discharged using a series of DC pulses successfully, as Eisenring demonstrates precedent in the art for discharging a quantum battery suing that method.  See MPEP 2143 (I) C.  Additionally, the duration of the pulses would be expected to be a matter of routine experimentation in the art.  Since Lie teaches a quantum battery with the same structure as the instant quantum battery (as outlined in claim 1), a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the reasonable expectation that the pulse width needed to trigger a discharge of the battery would be inherent based on the composition of the battery, and, in the course of implementing the method of Eisenring, routine experimentation would determine how long the pulses would need to be in order to discharge the battery of Lie.  See MPEP 2112 and 2144.05 (II).

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 1-8, 11-31, and 33 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10395850 (Henceforth US’850) in view of Lie (US 20170032899 A1; Henceforth Lie 2) and Little Jr.  The examiner notes US’850 is the patented version of the Lie patent application, and a reissue of US’850 has been since released.  

Regarding claim 1, the instant claim is drawn to a quantum dipole battery comprising: a positive electrode; a negative electrode; and a multilayer structure, disposed between the positive electrode and the negative electrode, the multilayer structure defining a quantum superlattice that comprises a plurality of bilayers, each bilayer including: a quantum well layer; and a quantum barrier layer, the quantum well layer being separated from and coupled to an adjacent quantum well layer by the quantum barrier layer, wherein: the multilayer structure defines a microcavity comprising quantum well layers and quantum barrier layers, each having a thickness of nanometer scale; incident quantum electric dipolar waves are reflected and confined in the microcavity of the multilayer structure, the microcavity providing confinement of excitonic and ionic dipolar waves (E.I.D. waves); excitons and indirect excitons are created due to the coupling between the adjacent quantum wells or a Rabi oscillation mechanism or in the quantum barrier layer or its surfaces which are sandwiched by the quantum well layers, adjacent quantum wells and barriers being coupled together with quantum E.I.D. waves in the quantum superlattice through a long range phase correlation, electronic charges being transported by a phonon-assisted quantum tunneling or a hopping mechanism through the quantum barrier layers; the coupling of adjacent quantum well layers and quantum barrier layers results in a dipole-dipole interaction between excitonic dipoles and ionic dipoles with confinement of quantum dipoles in an area of quantum wells and quantum barriers in the microcavity; and the multilayer structure has a pseudo-one-dimensional structure in a longitudinal direction to two-dimensional horizontal layers which are stacked in that direction, and the E.I.D. waves can be reflected in the longitudinal direction and confined in the microcavity. 
 US’850 teaches an electric energy storage device consisting of a multilayer composed of millions of bilayers composed of a first conductor layer, a second conductive layer and an ionic material sandwiched between them (Claim 1).  US’850 teaches the device has a positive electrode attached to the first conductive layer of the multilayered structure and a negative electrode attached to the last conductive layer of the multilayered structure (Claim 1).  US’850 teaches each of the first and second conductor layers may be two-dimensional with a nanometer-scale thickness, and the ionic material layer disposed in-between is also has a nano-scale thickness (Claim 1 and 3).  US’850 teaches this structure creates a multilayered structure that creates a quantum well heterostructure (Claim 1) and the ionic material layer (also referred to as a dipole material layer) is electrically insulating (Claim 1).  The examiner notes the conductive layers are equivalent to the quantum well layers of the instant claim, and the ionic/dipole material layers match the quantum barrier layer of the instant claim.  This creates a quantum dipole system of excitons and ions (Claim 1), making this match a “quantum dipole battery”.  US’850 also teaches the first and second conductor layers are stacked on top of each other and in between the dipole or ionic material layer is sandwiched, so as to form a 2+1 dimensional multilayer, wherein each of the first and second conductor layers and the dipole or ionic material layer is 2-dimensional and forms a plane sheet which is not bent because of a dipole-dipole interaction depending on the directions of the dipoles, and a bending the sheet may change the interaction, and wherein the dipole-dipole interaction between excitonic dipole and ionic dipole is quasi one dimensional (Claim 4).  
US’850 also teaches that, upon the introduction of an external electric field, quantum dipoles are induced across the multilayer structure in the form of electronic dipoles and ionic dipoles (Claims 1 and 6).  This functionally creates electron-hole pairs that propagate vertically through the multilayered structure (Claim 7), leading to the formation of excitons (Claims 4 and 8), which US’850 terms a “pseudo-spin wave” (Claim 7).  US’850 also teaches the multilayer transforms to an excited bipolaron and an anti-ferroelectric structure by polaron interactions and Coulombic interactions within the bilayer (Claim 8).  The examiner notes that, in the instant specification, the “exciton and ionic dipole waves” (“E.I.D. waves”) is the result of a coherence of a state that is stabilized through a “structural phase transition” by the activation of the Coulombic interactions between ionic and electronic dipoles (paragraph 89).   The examiner notes that the “pseudo-spin waves” noted by US’850 is functionally identical to the “E.I.D. waves” of the instant claim.  The examiner notes this also teaches that excitons and indirect excitons are created, at the very least, though coupling between adjacent quantum wells (Claims 6 and 7), and are confined within the microcavities formed between the quantum wells and the quantum barriers.
The instant specification specifies that a battery cell formed by the multilayer structure acts as a Distributed Bragg Reflector that reflects incident dipolar waves (paragraph 36), caused by the periodicity of the layers (paragraph 39).  US’850 teaches a functionally identical multilayer structure with a periodic structure (Claim 1).  As such, since US’850 teaches an equivalent periodic multilayers structure, it also inherently acts as a Distributed Bragg Reflector, which can reflect waves, such as the incident dipolar waves and E.I.D. waves.  See MPEP 2112.01 (I).   
US’850 does not explicitly teach how electronic charges are transported through the quantum barrier layers.  Lie 2 teaches an electric storage device ([0012]) comprising millions of bilayers of a first conductor layer, an ionic layer, and a second conductor layer, formed to make a multilayer structure ([0015]-[0016]), with electrodes on the first and last layers ([0012]).  Each conductor layer is made of graphene ([0030]), and, upon applying an electric field, operates through an identical dipolar spin wave propagation mechanism ([0104]). Lie 2 notes that the application of an external field results in an excitation that creates a polarization of ions and an excitation of valence electrons to conduction band create an collective dipoles in the multilayer system through a propagation of a dipole field (pseudo spin wave) from the electrodes to the empty states ([0104] and [0108]).  The collective dipoles matches the definition of a phonon, as they are a collective excitation of the quantum wells.  Given there are insulating regions dispersed between quantum well layers, the examiner reasons that the excitation of the valence electrons into the collective conductive band would need to occur through a tunneling process, but Lie 2 does not explicitly mention this process occurs.  
Little Jr. teaches a semiconductor device for detecting radiation includes a plurality of quantum well layers, each of which has bound ground and excited states, interleaved with a plurality of superlattice barrier layers, each of which has a miniband of energy states (Abstract).  Little Jr. teaches that, when a bias is applied in a quantum well infrared photodetector, electrons can jump into the excited states upon absorption of photons having the proper energy, and can tunnel through the barriers separating the wells; these electrons are collected as a current ([008]; Figure 8a, above).  Little Jr. notes the amount of tunneling can be tuned by the adjusting the thickness of the superlattice barrier layers, which Little Jr. does to prevent tunneling without the application of a bias ([015]).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism.  Little Jr. teaches precedent in the field of quantum superlattices that, under a bias, electrons can be excited into the conduction band which can tunnel through the barriers disposed next to a quantum well.  Lie 2 notes a similar excitation creates an polarization of ions and an excitation of valence electrons to conduction band create an collective dipoles in the multilayer system through a propagation of a dipole field (pseudo spin wave) from the electrodes to the empty states ([0104]), which is identical to the mechanism US’850 discloses.  These collective dipoles and collective excitation meets the definition of a phonon, and the delocalization of the electrons, as evidenced by Little Jr. occurs via a tunneling mechanism.  Thus, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have a reasonable expectation that electrons (which are charged) are transported through quantum barrier layers of Lie 2 and US’850 through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, based on the teachings of Little Jr. who teaches a base tunneling mechanism with a similarly structured device.  

Regarding claim 2, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the multilayer structure is a quantum superlattice structure which comprises a Distributed Bragg Reflector (DRB) or a reflector layer made from one or more insulator materials, a thickness of the reflector layer being in a micrometer range. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  As described in claim 1, US’850 teaches a functionally identical multilayered structure formed with a period (Claim 1) to the instant claim, and the instant specification specifies that a battery cell formed by the instant multilayer structure acts as a Distributed Bragg Reflector, caused by the periodicity of its layers (paragraph 39).  Since the structure taught by US’850 inherently acts as a Distributed Bragg Reflector, and the structure is formed of millions of bilayers, the structure of US’850 has a plurality of stacked DRBs.  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 3, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 2, wherein the quantum superlattice structure further comprises a second DRB or a second reflector layer made from one or more insulator materials, the DRB or reflector layer and the second DRB or second reflector layer sandwiching the plurality of bilayers. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 2.  As described in claims 1 and 2, US’850 teaches a functionally identical multilayered structure formed with a period (Claim 1) to the instant claim, and the instant specification specifies that a battery cell formed by the instant multilayer structure acts as a Distributed Bragg Reflector, caused by the periodicity of its layers (paragraph 39).  Since the structure taught by US’850 inherently acts as a Distributed Bragg Reflector, and the structure is formed of millions of bilayers, the structure of US’850 has a plurality of stacked DRBs, and the external most bilayers, which act as DRBs, sandwich the rest of the plurality of bilayers.  
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 4, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the multilayer structure comprises millions of the bilayers. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches the multilayer structure comprises millions of the bilayers (Claim 1).
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 5, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the quantum well layers are nanosized layers comprising a conductor, a semimetal, a semiconductor, or a quantum dot material. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches the quantum well layers are conductors (Claim 1).
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 6,  the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the quantum barrier layers are nanosized layers comprising an ionic material, a polar molecule, a dielectric material, or an electrically polarizable material, which are adapted to become polarized in response to an applied field. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches the barrier layers are ionic materials (Claim 1).  
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 7, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the positive electrode and the negative electrode are configured to be attached to corresponding metal sheets, the corresponding metal sheets having been coated with at least one of activated carbon powder, graphite, or graphene. 
 US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches the electrodes which are attached to a copper (conductor) sheet (Claim 1). and the conductive layers may include activated carbons, electrically polarizable ionic materials, graphenes, carbon nanotubes, or any kind of conducting materials that are nanometer-scale and suitable to get doped with an ionic material for a conductor layer, ionic polymers, and ionic minerals (Claim 2).  The examiner notes the latter portion would reasonably include graphite, as it is a stacked orientation of graphene. US’850 teaches the conductor layer is attached to the electrode sheet (Claim 1) which is made of graphene (Claims 2 and 15); therefore, the metal sheets are coated with graphene.  
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 8, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the multilayer structure is manufactured by utilizing molecular beam epitaxy, chemical vapor deposition, 3D printing technique, or a slurry mixing technique on a bulk scale to produce the multilayered structure. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 does not tach, in the claim, how the layers are formed.  Lie 2 teaches each of the first and second conductor may be grown by a molecular beam epitaxy or metal-organic chemical vapor deposition ([0033]), and the conductor layers are coated with ionic materials or dipole materials with which cover the entire layer surface ([0082]).  Additionally, Lie 2 teaches the interval between the conductor layers in the bilayer and the thickness of conductor layer should be a nanometer size to introduce a quantum hetero-structure which may be grown by molecular beam epitaxy and metal-organic chemical vapor deposition ([01082]).  The examiner notes that the hetero-structure used here matches the multilayer structure of the instant claim.  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850  that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above, by the method taught by Lie 2.  Lie 2 demonstrates a method of forming a quantum heterostructure, which can adequately control a layer thickness close to one atomic layer ([0082]).  A person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date would have had a reasonable expectation that implementing the technique of Lie 2 to grow the structure of US’850 would have been successful, since Lie 2 teaches it can adequately control a layer thickness close to one atomic layer ([0082]), sufficient for a quantum battery.  See MPEP 2143 (I) C.  

Regarding claim 11, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the multilayer structure is comprised of millions of the bilayers, each bilayer being composed of a semiconductor layer and an ionic layer, wherein: the stack of bilayers is a superlattice; the semiconductor layer is a quantum well of the superlattice; and the superlattice structure can be fabricated by stacking layers alternatively from different materials with a period. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches the multilayer structure is composed of millions of bilayers (Claim 1), the bilayer hetero-structure (“a superlattice”) is comprised of the first and second conductor layers and the ionic material layer sandwiched therebetween them (Claim 1).  These are stacked with a period (Claim 1).  US’850 teaches each of the first and second conductor layers may be made from one selected from the group consisting of open structured activated carbon powder, carbon nano tube, and graphene (Claim 15) and may additionally include activated carbons, electrically polarizable ionic materials, graphene, carbon nanotubes, or any kind of conducting materials that are nanometer-scale and suitable to be coated by the ionic layer (Claim 2).  The examiner notes that graphite, which is stacked layers of graphene, can be reasonably assumed to fall under this category, as a particular orientation of graphene.   The instant specification states that the quantum well layer is a semiconductor and is made of graphite and graphene (paragraph 22), which makes the “conductor layers” of US’850 semiconductors, as defined by the instant specification.  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 12, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the quantum well layer of the bilayer is a nanosized layer made of a conductor, semimetal, direct transition semiconductor, indirect transition semiconductor, or quantum dot material, and the quantum well layer is made of activated carbon, graphite, graphene, or nanotubes. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches the quantum well layers are conductors (Claim 1) and are made out of open structured activated carbon powder, carbon nano tube, and graphene (Claims 2 and 15).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 13, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the quantum barrier layer is a thin layer made of ionic molecules, polar molecules, dielectric materials, electrically polarizable materials, or mineral materials, the polarizable materials including at least one of electronic polarization, ionic polarization, dipolar molecule polarization, or space charge polarization materials, and the ionic polarization materials including at least one of magnesium sulfate, sodium bicarbonate, sodium carbonate, cesium bicarbonate, cesium carbonate, lithium carbonate, potassium carbonate, rubidium carbonate, ionomers(ionic polymer), an alum, or a mineral. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches the barrier layers are ionic materials (Claim 1) which include MgSO4, LiPF6, LiClO4, LiN(CF3SO2)2, LiBF4, LiCF3SO3, LiSbF6, Li4Ti5O12.  The examiner notes magnesium sulfate is listed in the instant claim as an example of a ionic polarization material.  
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 14, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein a magnitude of a thickness of the quantum well layers is close to a de Broglie wavelength such that a corresponding electronic wave function is represented by a quantum harmonic wavefunction, and as the magnitude of thickness is in the nanometer scale, the eigen energy levels become quantized and discrete and are size dependent. 
 US’850, Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches the layers are on the nanometer scale (Claims 1 and 4).  The examiner notes the nanometer thickness of the layers is about an order of magnitude away from the de Broglie wavelength of an electron.  The examiner also notes that, by being a quantum well, the electronic wavefunction results in discrete energy levels that are quantized and are equivalent to the solutions of the quantum harmonic oscillator; this is evidenced by Townsend (“Quantum Physics”, University Science Books, 2010; Henceforth, Townsend).  The examiner notes that the spacings of the wells necessarily changes the resulting energy levels since the energy levels in a particle-in-a-box, which mirrors quantum well, is represented by                         
                            
                                
                                    E
                                
                                
                                    n
                                
                            
                            =
                            
                                
                                    1
                                
                                
                                    2
                                    m
                                
                            
                            
                                
                                    
                                        
                                            
                                                
                                                    π
                                                    n
                                                    ħ
                                                
                                                
                                                    a
                                                
                                            
                                        
                                    
                                
                                
                                    2
                                
                            
                        
                     where a is the width of the box/well, and n is the discrete energy state (Townsend , page 117) .
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 15, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the superlattice is a periodic heterostructure comprised of alternating different types of layers, which are semiconductor layers and ionic layers, wherein: the semiconductor layer is a quantum well and the ionic layer is a barrier of a superlattice; the quantum well layer is made of graphite and graphene, and the ionic layer is made of at least one of sodium carbonate, sodium bicarbonate, or magnesium sulfate(Epsomite); and a thickness of the quantum well and barrier layers is nanosized in the superlattice structure, so that the superlattice provides three forms of electron transportation: a miniband conduction, Wannier-Stark hopping, and phonon-assisted tunneling, providing a nonlinear behavior, a negative differential conductivity, and a superlattice current oscillation, respectively. 
 US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches the structure of the superlattice is periodic (Claim 1), wherein there are layers of quantum wells made out of graphene (Claim 15) and graphite (“graphenes” in Claim 2; graphite is a superstructure of graphene).  The examiner notes that graphene is classified as a semiconductor in the instant specification (paragraph 22).  Lie teaches the barrier layers are ionic materials (Claim 1) which can be made of magnesium sulfate ([0032]).  While US’850 teaches the structure of the instant claim, US’850 does not explicitly teach that the superlattice provides forms of electron transport.  
As described in claim 1, US’850 and Lie 2 in view of Little Jr. teach a structure in which phonon-assisted tunneling can occur.  Lie 2, discussing a structure practically identical to that of US’850, teaches the formation of a longitudinal optical mode of the dipolar phonon between the conductive layers ([0069]), and the formation of holes and electrons form polarons in the bilayer ([0087]), which interact and extend to other conductive layers ([0088]).  The examiner notes this means it is not localized to a single quantum well.  The examiner notes that this quasi-continuum of states formed, as seen most clearly in Figure 8a of Little Jr., shows the quantum wells act as a miniband, and, upon excitation of elections, the electrons can be transported through the conduction band.  US’850 teaches the localization of bound states upon the application of an electric field (Claim 1).  Since there are localized states within the phonon, Wannier-Stark hopping is possible between the localized states, as evidenced by Emin.  Therefore, the examiner believes the means of electron transport are inherent to the structure, as evidenced by Little Jr. and Emin, and the proposed impacts of said structure, being providing a nonlinear behavior, a negative differential conductivity, and a superlattice current oscillation, respectively, are similarly inherent. See MPEP 2112.01 (I).   
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850  that provides three forms of electron transport, as evidenced by Lie 2, Emin, and Little Jr. Lie 2 establishes that, for a structure like the battery taught by US’850, electrons excited from one quantum well are not confined to the well, implying that, in view of Little Jr., they are excited into a miniband and can move by conduction.   Additionally, as outlined in claim 1, phonon-assisted quantum tunneling is possible, as evidenced by Little Jr.  Lastly, since there are localized states within the phonon, Wannier-Stark hopping is possible between the localized states, as evidenced by Emin.  A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had a reasonable expectation that, with the mechanisms taught by Emin and Little Jr., the system of Lie 2 and US’850 would operate, since they meet the base description of what is needed for each of those electron transport mechanisms to be operative in the system.

Regarding claim 16, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the multilayer structure is a quantum superlattice which is composed of millions of quantum wells of superlattice minibands and quantum barriers of coherent optical phonons, wherein: the minibands are originated from a periodicity of the superlattice and nanosized thickness of the barriers; wavefunctions of electrons and holes are no longer localized in a certain quantum well, but exist all over the superlattice structure, but wavefunctions of the coherent optical phonons are localized in a certain barrier layer. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches the multilayer structure is a composed of millions of bilayers of quantum wells (Claim 1).  These are arranged in a periodic manner (Claim 1), with each layer being nanoscale thickness (Claims 1 and 4).  US’850 teaches the periodicity in the multilayer is in the range of nanometer scale to have a quantum dipole interaction in the bilayer, wherein the length of the layer period in the multilayer structure is in the range of nanometer scale for an electrical energy storage device, so that the spatial period of the layers in the vertical direction is directly related to a polaron formation in the bilayers, and the thickness of layers as well, wherein a linear chain of dipoles is introduced and formed in the vertical direction to the layers (Claim 1).  The examiner notes this means it is not localized to a single quantum well.  The examiner notes that this quasi-continuum of states formed, as seen most clearly in Figure 8a of Little Jr., shows the quantum wells act as a miniband.  
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 17, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein exciton creation in the quantum wells is induced by phonon-assisted tunneling and hopping conduction crossing the barrier layer with an external field and excitation of a valence electron leaving a hole behind, which are attractive by Coulomb force, the mechanism being strengthened by miniband formation, thermal stimulation, and/or nonadiabatic transition of a two-level system in the quantum well, the transition being induced by coherent polarized optical phonon wavefunctions, and Rabi oscillation. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  As outlined in claim 15, above, electron transport occurs via phonon-assisted tunneling and hopping conduction crossing the barrier layer with an external field.  This excitation of a valence electron necessarily generates a corresponding hole.  US’850 teaches a bound state of charge polarization may be induced and created by a charge separation and an excitation of valence electron, which is an electric quantum dipole (Claim 6); the examiner notes this matches the definition of the creation of an exciton.  This charge separation inherently has an attractive Columbic interaction.  The examiner notes that, while US’850 does not explicitly teach that the mechanism of exciton formation is strengthened by miniband formation, thermal stimulation, and/or nonadiabatic transition of a two-level system in the quantum well, thermal stimulation, by increasing the average velocity of the particles, will increase the energy of the electrons and the statistical likelihood that they can be excited into an energy state where they are no longer singly localized to one quantum well, enabling tunneling.  Therefore, the examiner believes exciton formation caused by tunneling inherently benefits from thermal stimulation.  See MPEP 2112.01 (I).   
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 18, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein excitonic transition dipoles and phonon transition dipoles are created in the superlattice with an applied electric field, and characteristics of the excitonic transition dipoles of the quantum wells are uniquely determined by specific properties of the superlattice, the transition dipole characteristic of the polarized wavefunctions of optical phonons being a unique property of the quantum barriers in the superlattice, which is induced by the applied electric field. 
 US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches excitonic dipoles and phonon dipoles are created within the superlattice with an applied electric field (Claim 6).  Since US’850 teaches the structure of the battery of claim 1, the uniquely determined characteristics of the excitonic transition dipoles of the quantum wells and quantum barriers are inherently taught.  See MPEP 2112.01 (I).   
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 19, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein a charging process occurs by applying an external power through the electrodes such that supplied energy from an external power source is transferred to the quantum superlattice in the multilayer structure by means of hopping/or tunneling conduction, a nonadiabatic excitonic dipole, and/or a phonon dipole creation mechanism, and a propagation of excitonic and ionic dipolar wavefunctions, wherein a physical mechanism transferring the electric energy from the power source to the superlattice includes employing a polaronic/Wannier-Stark hopping conduction mechanism, a quantum tunneling, a nonadiabatic transition, and/or Rabi oscillation in the superlattice structure, where the electron conduction by hopping through the ionic barrier layer is assisted by an optical phonon of a coherent state and a thermal stimulation. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches that, when an external field is applied, an polarization of ions and an excitation of valence electrons to conduction band creates collective dipoles in the multilayer system through a propagation of a dipole field (pseudo spin wave) from the electrodes to the empty states (Claim 1).  US’850 teaches the interaction terms of excitonic dipole and ionic dipole describe a propagation of pseudo spin waves across the layers in the direction vertical to the layer sheet, and, as the pseudo spin waves propagate in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure as the power continues to be provided by an external field (Claim 1).  The examiner notes this is a dipole field propagation can occur through tunneling, in a mechanism evidenced by Little Jr., and by hopping conduction, as evidenced by Emin.  While, US’850, Lie 2, Little Jr. nor Emin do not explicitly teach that the electron conduction by hopping through the ionic barrier layer is assisted by an optical phonon of a coherent state and a thermal stimulation, US’850 teaches a quantum dipole battery of the same structure and configuration as the instant Claim 1.  Therefore, even if US’850 did not know that the electron conduction by hopping through the ionic barrier layer is assisted by an optical phonon of a coherent state and a thermal stimulation, the inherent aspect did not need to be recognized at the relevant time. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  Thus, US’850 inherently teaches that the electron conduction by hopping through the ionic barrier layer is assisted by an optical phonon of a coherent state and a thermal stimulation.  See MPEP 2112 (I) and (II).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 20, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein minibands of the quantum well in the superlattice structure is a two-level system as long as the excitonic dipole creation and annihilation are related, which are two energy eigenstates of the two-level system, the two-level system being decoupled from other degrees of freedom of the system in the quantum wells, the two-level system being a pair of conduction and valence bands which is separated from other energy bands in this specific kind of quantum superlattice so that the two-level system is feasible energetically in creation of the excitonic dipoles in the quantum wells with an applied external electric field. 
 US’850, Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches excitonic dipoles and phonon dipoles are created within the superlattice with an applied electric field ([0075]), forming a two-level system (Claim 6). While this is not motivated in the claims of US’850, Lie 2 teaches that the ionic dipole and exciton density should be appropriately low because a high density causes to destroy the dipoles ([0088]), suggesting the creation and annihilation of excitonic dipoles are related. US’850 teaches the superlattice has a “2+1 dimension” for a dipole-dipole interaction which is considered separately in vertical and horizontal direction to the 2 dimensional plane (Claim 4), such that the quantum wells have quasi one-dimensional interaction in the vertical direction to the layers (Claim 4); the examiner notes this means the wells are free from other degrees of freedom in this system.  US’850 teaches that, when a field is applied, a polarization of ions and an excitation of valence electrons to conduction band create dipoles in the multilayer system (Claims 1 and 6). The examiner notes that the conduction band matches the excited state, while the ground state would reasonably match the valence band of the instant claim.  The examiner notes the “collective dipoles” refer to excitonic and ionic dipoles, which are described immediately after the above statement (Claim 1).  Therefore, while US’850 doesn’t explicitly mention conduction and valence bands which is separated from other energy bands in this specific kind of quantum superlattice, this is further evidenced by Little Jr., showing each quantum well is a 2-state system (Figure 1a, above).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850  that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above, wherein the minibands of the quantum well in the superlattice structure is a two-level system as long as the excitonic dipole creation and annihilation are related, as taught by Lie 2 in the same field of endeavor.  Lie 2 teaches that the ionic dipole and exciton density should be appropriately low because a high density causes to destroy the dipoles ([0088]), suggesting the creation and annihilation of excitonic dipoles are related.  Thus, there would have been a motivation for US’850 to keep the ionic dipole and exciton density low, to prevent the annihilation of dipoles.  Since the formation and annihilation of the dipoles are opposing but related processes, a person of ordinary skill would have the reasonable expectation that the system of US’850 would function in a similar manner, as the structures of Lie 2 and US’850 are functionally identical.  

Regarding claim 21, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein valence electrons can jump to the conduction band by a nonadiabatic transition with the applied field to form the excitonic states in the two-level system by means of Rabi oscillation mechanism, excitonic state formation in the quantum wells and superlattice occurring by a hopping conduction mechanism through the barrier layer is strengthened by a thermal stimulation and the polarized optical phonon, and excitonic excitation and its propagation in the quantum superlattice structure being processed by a polaronic hopping conduction and a phonon assisted quantum tunnelling, where the excitonic wavefunctions can propagate through potential barriers from a quantum well to the next adjacent quantum well. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches that, when an external field is applied, an polarization of ions and an excitation of valence electrons to conduction band creates collective dipoles in the multilayer system through a propagation of a dipole field (pseudo spin wave) from the electrodes to the empty states (Claim 1).  US’850 teaches the interaction terms of excitonic dipole and ionic dipole describe a propagation of pseudo spin waves across the layers in the direction vertical to the layer sheet, and, as the pseudo spin waves propagate in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure as the power continues to be provided by an external field (Claim 1).  The examiner notes that the propagation can occur through tunneling, in a mechanism evidenced by Little Jr., and by hopping conduction, as evidenced by Emin.  While US’850, Lie 2, Little Jr. and Emin do not explicitly teach that the exciton formation occurs by a hopping conduction mechanism through the barrier layer is strengthened by a thermal stimulation, and that valence electrons can jump to the conduction band by a nonadiabatic transition by means of Rabi oscillation mechanism, US’850 teaches a quantum dipole battery of the same structure and configuration as the instant Claim 1.  Therefore, even if US’850 did not know that the hopping conduction mechanism through the barrier layer is strengthened by a thermal stimulation, and that valence electrons can jump to the conduction band by a nonadiabatic transition by means of Rabi oscillation mechanism, the inherent aspects did not need to be recognized at the relevant time. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  Thus, US’850 inherently teaches that exciton formation occurs by a hopping conduction mechanism through the barrier layer is strengthened by a thermal stimulation, and that valence electrons can jump to the conduction band by a nonadiabatic transition by means of Rabi oscillation mechanism.  See MPEP 2112 (I) and (II).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

 Regarding claim 22, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein a coherent dipolar wavefunction in the barrier layer is a displaced vibration of the optical phonon, and an excited phonon system turns, by the applied field, eventually into a dipolar phonon system of coherent state in the barrier layers, the oscillatory evolutions of the excited and polarized ionic phonons in the barrier layers being represented as wavefunctions of quantum physics, preserving specific phase and amplitude, which is a coherent state. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches that a nanometer-sized bound state of charge polarization may be induced and created by a charge separation and a longitudinal optical mode of dipolar phonon (Claim 1), and the nanometer-sized bound state of charge which is a quantum dipole may be induced and created by an applied external field, and the process of a quantum dipole formation in the multilayer may be due to a dipole-dipole interaction of the electronic dipoles and ionic dipoles (Claim 6).  While US’850 does not explicitly teach that oscillatory evolutions of the excited and polarized ionic phonons in the barrier layers being represented as wavefunctions of quantum physics, preserving specific phase and amplitude, which is a coherent state, Lie 2 teaches the interaction of the longitudinal mode of ionic dipole vibration with the electric charge is attractive to form a polaron, and the interaction between the positive polaron and the negative polaron in the bilayer turns into an interaction between the electron and the hole mediated by longitudinal optical mode of ionic dipole vibration ([0086]).  Lie 2 teaches how the periodic nature of the superlattice impacts polaron formation in a bilayer ([0184]-[0192]), including the wavefunction.  Per Bloch’s Theorem, the periodic nature of the structure is maintained ([0189]), thus inherently preserving phase and amplitude.  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, wherein oscillatory evolutions of the excited and polarized ionic phonons in the barrier layers can be represented as wavefunctions, preserving specific phase and amplitude, which is a coherent state, as taught by Lie 2.  Lie 2, when teaching a functionally equivalent structure, presents the relationship between the oscillatory evolutions of the phonons and a wavefunction that preserves phase and amplitude.  A person of ordinary skill would have had the reasonable expectation that the phonons of US’850 exhibit similar oscillatory evolutions that can be modeled with a wavefunction, since a near equivalent system, in similar circumstances, demonstrates the same oscillatory evolutions.

Regarding claim 23, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein transition dipole systems of coherent wavefunctions continue to propagate over the superlattice structure as energy is supplied to the system, and electronic states of two-level systems interacting with the applied electric field are excited to produce excitonic dipoles in the quantum wells of the superlattice, where transition dipole moments take supplied electric energy by a nonadiabatic process. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches the interaction terms of excitonic dipole and ionic dipole describe a propagation of pseudo spin waves across the layers in the direction vertical to the layer sheet (Claim 1), wherein the pseudo spin waves propagate crossing the layers by an applied power, and as the pseudo spin waves propagate in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure as the power continues to be provided by an external field. (Claim 1).  US’850 teaches the mechanism for the charging process is induced by a polaron interaction, and by a polaron interaction and Coulomb force, the dipoles keep transforming into the anti-ferroelectric nanostructures in charge (Claim 1).  While, US’850 does not explicitly teach that the transition dipole moments take supplied electric energy by a nonadiabatic process, US’850teaches a quantum dipole battery of the same structure and configuration as the instant Claim 1.  Therefore, even if US’850 did not know what mechanism the transition dipole moments take supplied energy from, the inherent mechanism did not need to be recognized at the relevant time. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  Thus, US’850 inherently teaches that the transition dipole moments take supplied electric energy by a nonadiabatic process.  See MPEP 2112 (I) and (II).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 24, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein excitonic dipolar oscillations are vibrations of a nucleus which are due to nonadiabatic electronic transitions, which promote a dipole wavefunction of coherent state in the quantum well, and a quantum effect of the superlattice is a standing wave formation or traveling waves in the quantum wells and the quantum barriers, the wavefunctions of localized excitonic dipole moments allowing a basis for expansion of dipole states, which are collective vibrations of coherent states in the superlattice. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 only explicitly discusses oscillations in the context of discharging their battery, and never specifically discusses vibrations within the nucleus (Claim 19).  US’850 teaches that pseudo spin waves propagate crossing the layers by an applied power in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure as the power continues to be provided by an external field (Claim 1).  Additionally, US’850 teaches the mechanism for a charging process is induced by a polaron interaction, and by a polaron interaction and Coulomb force, the dipoles keep transforming into the anti-ferroelectric nanostructures in charge, and the polaron interaction is so strong that the excitons in the conductor layer have been broken into the electrons and the holes to form the positive polarons and the negative polarons in the bilayer (Claim 1).  The examiner notes the anti-ferroelectric nanostructure is the coherent state of the quantum well, and the pseudo spin wave is equivalent to the collective vibrations of coherent states in the superlattice.  While US’850 does not explicitly specify that this occurs through a nonadiabatic coupling process, US’850 teaches a quantum dipole battery of the same structure and configuration as the instant claim 1.  Therefore, even if US’850 did not know that excitonic dipolar oscillations are vibrations of a nucleus which are due to nonadiabatic electronic transitions, the inherent mechanism did not need to be recognized at the relevant time. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  Thus, US’850 inherently teaches that the excitonic dipolar oscillations are vibrations of a nucleus which are due to nonadiabatic electronic transitions.  See MPEP 2112 (I) and (II).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 25, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein nonadiabatic coupling drives quantum transitions between states of a two-level system, leading to collective vibrations of an excitonic system in the quantum well, and oscillatory evolutions of the excited electrons and the holes in the quantum wells are represented as quantum coherent wavefunctions, preserving specific phase and amplitude, which is a coherent state, where eigen-modes and energy levels are quantized and size-dependent. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches the oscillatory evolutions of the excited electrons and the holes in the quantum wells are represented as quantum coherent wavefunctions, preserving specific phase and amplitude (see claim 22 above), which necessitates that where eigen-modes and energy levels are quantized and size-dependent. US’850 does not explicitly teach wherein nonadiabatic coupling drives quantum transitions between states of a two-level system, leading to collective vibrations of an excitonic system in the quantum well.  Lie 2 teaches that, when the polaronic interaction is activated, an electron (a hole) of the excitonic dipole is pulled by the longitudinal mode of ionic dipole vibration, and the electron and the hole in the excitonic dipole are pulled away from each other and separated more by the force ([0148]).  In turn, the dissipating energy of the electrons (the holes) creates more the longitudinal motion of the ionic dipole vibration and this process keeps progressing until the excitonic binding is diminished, and the polaronic binding dominates in the bilayer ([0148]).  In this process, US’850 and Lie 2 do not explicitly specify that this occurs through a nonadiabatic coupling process.  Yet, US’850 teaches a quantum dipole battery of the same structure and configuration as the instant claim 1 and Lie 2.  Therefore, even if US’850 did not know that this occurs through a nonadiabatic coupling process, the inherent mechanism did not need to be recognized at the relevant time. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  Thus, US’850 inherently teaches that nonadiabatic coupling drives quantum transitions between states of the two-level system, leading to collective vibrations of an excitonic system in the quantum well.  See MPEP 2112 (I) and (II).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above. 

Regarding claim 26, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein phonon wavefunctions of a polarized and displaced vibration which is excited by an external field are optical phonons of a coherent state, and eigen modes of the phonon are quantized in the barrier layer, which is a coherent state of a displaced harmonic oscillation, and quantum barrier layers of coherent states act as microcavities that cause confinement of the optical phonon of longitudinal mode. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches when external DC field is applied in the direction vertical to the layers, pseudo spin waves propagate, crossing the layers in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure (Claim 7), and the electrical charge built-up at the nodes of the wave is due to a dipole-dipole interaction of electronic and ionic dipoles (Claim 6). US’850 further teaches that the interactions among ionic dipoles in the multilayer arises from dipolar phonons, and their acoustic vibrations (Claim 1).  The examiner notes the ionic dipoles refer to dipoles formed in the quantum barrier layer, which is a coherent state of a displaced harmonic oscillation, and, as phonons, they have quantized eigenmodes.  Additionally, the examiner notes the formed dipoles act as microcavities that confine the optical phonon in the longitudinal mode of the battery. 
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 27, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein confinement of coherent excitonic dipoles in the quantum well layer and a proximate location, and collective polarization ordering of the coherent optical phonon dipoles of the barrier layer, make a quantum dipole-dipole interaction viable, and specific quantum superlattice structures aid inducing coupling of coherent quantum dipoles. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches when external DC field is applied in the direction vertical to the layers, pseudo spin waves propagate, crossing the layers in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure (Claim 7), and the electrical charge built-up at the nodes of the wave is due to a dipole-dipole interaction of electronic and ionic dipoles (Claim 6). US’850 further teaches that the interactions among ionic dipoles in the multilayer arises from dipolar phonons, and their acoustic vibrations (Claim 1).  The examiner notes the ionic dipoles refer to dipoles formed in the quantum barrier layer and the electronic dipoles are dipoles formed within the quantum wells.  Additionally, the examiner notes the quantum well dipoles are proximate to the ionic dipoles in the quantum barrier layer.  The examiner notes the propagation occurs due to collective polarization ordering of the coherent optical phonon dipoles of the barrier layer, making quantum dipole-dipole interaction viable, which indues coupling of coherent quantum dipoles in the subsequent layers.  
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 28, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein collective dipole fields of coherent optical phonons of a longitudinal mode in the barrier layer are coupled to transition dipoles of excitonic vibrations of the longitudinal mode in a two-level system of the quantum wells, and transition dipoles of quantum wells and transition dipoles of barriers are coupled via quantum dipole-dipole interactions. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches when external DC field is applied in the direction vertical to the layers, pseudo spin waves propagate, crossing the layers in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure (Claim 7), and the electrical charge built-up at the nodes of the wave is due to a dipole-dipole interaction of electronic and ionic dipoles (Claim 6). US’850 further teaches that the interactions among ionic dipoles in the multilayer arises from dipolar phonons, and their acoustic vibrations (Claim 1).  The examiner notes the ionic dipoles refer to dipoles formed in the quantum barrier layer and the electronic dipoles are dipoles formed within the quantum wells.  The examiner additionally notes that coherent optical phonons of a longitudinal mode in the barrier layer are coupled with the phonons (electron hole pair) of the quantum well layer, which, in view of Little Jr., is the longitudinal mode of the vibration of the two-level system of the quantum wells.
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 29, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein quantum dipole-dipole interaction between coherent excitonic wavefunctions and coherent optical phonons of longitudinal modes occurs in the heterostructures of the superlattice of the microcavity, and the interaction induces a new coupled state of exciton and phonon, the new coupled state being metastable. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches when external DC field is applied in the direction vertical to the layers, pseudo spin waves propagate, crossing the layers in the vertical direction, the dipoles spread all over the multilayer structure (Claim 7), and the electrical charge built-up at the nodes of the wave is due to a dipole-dipole interaction of electronic and ionic dipoles (Claim 6). US’850 further teaches that the interactions among ionic dipoles in the multilayer arises from dipolar phonons, and their acoustic vibrations (Claim 1).  The examiner notes the ionic dipoles refer to dipoles formed in the quantum barrier layer and the electronic dipoles are dipoles formed within the quantum wells.  The examiner additionally notes that coherent optical phonons of a longitudinal mode in the barrier layer are coupled with the phonons (electron hole pair) of the quantum well layer, which, in view of Little Jr., is the longitudinal mode of the vibration of the two-level system of the quantum wells.  US’850 teaches that the bilayer heterostructure is comprised of the first and second conductor layers and the ionic material layer sandwiched therebetween them (Claim 1), which the examiner notes means the interactions of the coherent excitonic wavefunctions and coherent optical phonons of longitudinal modes occurs in the heterostructures of the superlattice, in the microcavities defined by the barrier and quantum well layers.  US’850 teaches this causes a transition to an antiferroelectric nanostructure in the bilayer (Claim 8).  While US’850 does not teach, in the claims, that this structure is stable, Lie 2 teaches this the formation of the anti-ferroelectric structure keeps the dipole system stable in the bilayer ([0087], [0161]).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above, wherein the formation of the anti-ferroelectric structure is stable, as taught by Lie 2.  There would have been a motivation to design the battery such that it forms an anti-ferroelectric structure, under an applied external field, as in US’850, since the interaction between the excitonic dipoles and the ionic dipoles creates a collective phenomenon to form an antiferroelectric nanostructure in the bilayer, keeping the dipole system stable in the bilayer (Lie 2, [0163]).  

Regarding claim 30, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein stable electric nano-structures are formed in the superlattice of the multilayer structure through a structural phase transition which is caused by an excitonic-ionic wavefunction of a boson bound state in the microcavity accompanying a spontaneous structural change, the spontaneous structural change being one of a Mott-insulator or Peierls or phase transition of an electric charge system by activation of the polaronic interactions, and wherein stable electric nano-structures include at least one of a ferroelectric structure, an antiferroelectric structure, a surface exciton charge double layer structure, or an electric charge double layer structure on a boundary between the quantum well and the barrier, the supplied energy being stored as an electrostatic potential energy in the nanostructures when the battery is charged. 
US’850, Lie and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 further teaches that the structural transition from the dipole arrays to the antiferroelectric nanostructure is induced by the excitonic bipolaron interaction and the Coulomb force between the electrons and the holes in the bilayer (Claim 8), and the structure stores electric energy in the form of binding energy (Claim 9).  The examiner notes that the process of separating an electron from the nucleus, creating a hole which forms the dipoles in the layer, creates an electrostatic potential energy, due to Coulombic interaction, which US’850 mentions.  Additionally, the examiner notes that a bipolaron is formed due to a structural phase transition 
 Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 31, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein a transition probability amplitude of energy state in a two-level system oscillates with a Rabi frequency Ω which is proportional to an amplitude of the applied field such that electronic charges of the electric dipole systems are decoupled from the ionic dipole systems and excited to the conduction bands when a high electric field                         
                            
                                
                                    E
                                
                                →
                            
                        
                     and high power of a DC pulse or an AC applied as a trigger power for discharge. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches that a guiding AC field is applied for discharge (Claim 11), and all of the electronic dipoles and ionic dipoles which are not in the antiferroelectric bound state are forced to oscillate along with the applied AC field (Claim 19).  Additionally, Lie 2 teaches that, for an equivalent system, the electric dipoles which are stored inside a superstructure begin to get released in response to the applied external field from the antiferroelectric structure and turns into the excitonic dipoles and the ionic dipoles ([0169]), creating the antiparallel pseudo spin wave that releases charge to the electrodes taught by US’850  (Claim 12).  US’850 teaches the oscillating dipoles interact with the oscillating electric field at resonance (Claim 19).  While US’850 does not explicitly teach that the oscillation occurs with a Rabi frequency, US’850 teaches a quantum dipole battery of the same structure and configuration as the instant claim 1 and Lie 2.  Therefore, even if US’850 did not know what frequency the two-level system oscillates with, the inherent mechanism did not need to be recognized at the relevant time. Schering Corp. v. Geneva Pharm. Inc., 339 F.3d 1373, 1377, 67 USPQ2d 1664, 1668 (Fed. Cir. 2003).  Thus, US’850 inherently teaches that the two-level system oscillates with a Rabi frequency that is proportional to an amplitude of the applied field such that electronic charges of the electric dipole systems are decoupled from the ionic dipole systems and excited to the conduction bands when a high electric field                         
                            
                                
                                    E
                                
                                →
                            
                        
                     and high power of a DC pulse or an AC applied as a trigger power for discharge.  See MPEP 2112 (I) and (II).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Regarding claim 33, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein oscillating power or pulse shape power released from the activated battery cell is due to an applied pulse and a collectively oscillating ionic dipole field and intrinsic properties of the superlattice, the released power being rectified to DC output power and harvested, and wherein a small portion of harvested energy is fed back for the trigger pulse generation through a feedback device and remaining harvested energy is used for other works. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches discharge is engaged with an applied external AC field (Claim 19).  The external power is passed through a rectifier, and DC output voltage is measured (Claim 19).  US’850 teaches an embodiment where, after some power is first generated with an external AC field, a feedback system, utilizing energy from the battery is utilized to autonomously discharge the rest of the battery, where the excess energy is used for extra work (Claim 20).  The examiner notes that, since the discharge needs an external field, the energy taken through the feedback loop must power the field for the rest of the battery to discharge, in this particular embodiment.  
Therefore, it would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to create the battery of US’850 that allows charges to be transported through the quantum barrier layers through a phonon-assisted tunneling mechanism, as outlined with claim 1, above.  

Claim 9 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10395850 (Henceforth US’850) in view of Lie 2, Little Jr, and Upreti.
Regarding claim 9, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 1, wherein the battery cell is fabricated by means of a slurry mixing technique with an activated carbon powder, a binder, and active materials. 
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 1.  US’850 teaches an example where the sample is made of an activated carbon powder that is mixed and coated with liquid ions, before the mixture is pressed to obtain the bilayers (Claim 17).  While US850 does not explicitly mention the fabrication method in the claims, Lie 2 teaches that MgSO4 is mixed with oils to create the liquid ions ([0224]) in an equivalent system.  The examiner notes this is a slurry.  US’850, Lie 2 nor Little Jr. do not teach the addition of a binder in the battery cell.  
Upreti teaches the use of biominerals within an electrochemical cell ([0008]) in order to minimize mechanical stress, peeling, and the like ([0035]) within a battery.  Upreti teaches the combination of electrochemically active materials of the battery with bone apatite to produce a new class of materials called bio-mineralized materials that can be used in batteries to obtain high energy density and specific capacity ([0040]).  The examiner notes the bone apatite serves the same function as a binder in the battery.  Additionally, Upreti states the bio-mineralized composite can be used in a quantum battery (Claim 5).  
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to create a quantum battery, as taught by US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. a binder is included with the active material to form a battery mixture, as taught by Upreti in the same field of endeavor.  There would have been a motivation, as taught by Upreti in the same field of endeavor, to include bone apatite with battery active materials, to create a composite which enables the creation of a high energy density and specific capacity battery ([0040]) while minimizing mechanical stress, chemical deterioration, decrepitation, amorphization, peeling, resistance or impedance gain, structural disorder, voltage fade, capacity fade, degassing and the like ([0035]).  A person of ordinary skill in the art would have had the reasonable expectation that substitution of these binders with the liquid ions of US’850 and Lie 2 would have had predictable effects, as each would be performing the same function as it had in the base systems.  

Claim 10 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10395850 (Henceforth US’850) in view of Lie 2, Little Jr, Upreti and Tai.
Regarding claim 10, in instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 9, wherein the activated carbon powder is a micro-sized porous material which has graphite layers, the activated carbon powder having a large surface area due to a high degree of porosity, and wherein ionic layers are made of active materials and binders which are adsorbed into surfaces of the carbon to form a nanosized layer. 
US’850, Lie 2, Little Jr. and Upreti teach the battery of claim 9.  US’850 teaches the activated carbon have high surface area and nanometer-sized pores (Claim 16), which Lie 2 teaches, in an equivalent system, adsorb the ionic layer in the micro pores ([0215]).  The examiner notes micro-pores implies the structure has a high degree of porosity.  As outlined in claim 1, each of the activated carbon (“conductor”) layers and ionic layers are each nano-sized in thickness after a compression step (Claim 17).  As outlined in claim 9, the active materials are in the ionic layer of US’850 and binders are included with the active materials of Upreti.  US’850, Lie 2, Little Jr. and Upreti do not explicitly teach that the activated carbon powder is a micro-sized porous material which has graphite layers.  
Tai teaches a method of synthesizing activated carbon from graphite for use in a battery (page 50, column 1).  The morphology of the resulting product retains layered graphite (Figure 1e, above), and has a size ranging from several micrometers to several nanometers, depending on how much potassium hydroxide is used in the synthesis of the activated carbon page 50, column 2).
 Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to create the quantum battery of claim 9, as taught by US’850, Lie 2, Little Jr., and Upreti, wherein the activated carbon powder is a micro-sized porous material which has graphite layers, as taught by Tai in the same field of endeavor.  Tai demonstrates precedent in the art to use activated carbon made of graphite layers, and teaches it increases interplanar spacing, allowing ion diffusion to be more efficient (page 50, column 1).  There would have been a reasonable expectation by a person of ordinary skill in the art, that the use of activated carbon synthesized from graphite would have been successful, since it would be performing the same function as the activated carbon of US’850, and there would have been a predictable effect of creating a carbon material with more space between layers, allowing for better diffusion of binder and active materials around each layer of the graphite.  This would have the predictable effect of better coating and filling of the pores of the carbon material, improving upon the battery of US’850.  See MPEP  2143 (I) C.  

Claim 32 is rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-20 of U.S. Patent No. 10395850 (Henceforth US’850) in view of Lie 2, Little Jr, and Eisenring.
Regarding claim 32, the instant claim is drawn to the quantum dipole battery of claim 31, wherein charge carriers are released from the bound states and excited to conduction bands by the trigger power and generate voltaic power with an oscillating electric field or pulse electric field in the superlattice, and voltaic power appears on the electrodes when the battery cell is activated for discharge by the trigger power, where the trigger power is a DC pulse power of higher voltage and fast rise time, and a width of the pulse is in a range of nanosecond, pulse being applied to the battery cell through the negative and positive electrodes for discharge, where the released power from the battery cell is harvested and fed back to the input process at a feedback device.
US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. teach the battery of claim 31.  US’850 teaches voltaic power appears on the electrodes when the battery cell is activated for discharge by the trigger power (Claims 1 and 19).  Some of the energy is provided into a feedback system (Claim 20), and the rest is used for extra work (Claim 20).  Lie 2 teaches that charge carriers are released from the bound states and excited to conduction bands by the trigger power ([0183]) and generate voltaic power with an oscillating electric field or pulse electric field in the superlattice.  US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. do not teach the trigger power is a DC pulse power of higher voltage and fast rise time, and a width of the pulse is in a range of nanosecond, pulse being applied to the battery cell through the negative and positive electrodes for discharge.
Eisenring teaches a system with loss-less transmission of electrical energy ([0001]) wherein a quantum battery is supplied with direct voltage source to the storage cell in the form of DC current pulses corresponding to the Dirac function (Abstract and [0004]).  These pulses have a fast rise time and a higher voltage than the quantum battery (Figure 3, above).  While Eisenring states the pulses are quick ([0009]), the exact width is not specified.  	
Therefore, it would have been obvious for a person of ordinary skill, before the effective filing date of the claimed invention, to create a quantum battery, as taught by US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. wherein the energy is released with DC trigger pulses with a fast rise and high voltage, as taught by Eisenring in the same field of endeavor, and using short pulses.  There would have been a motivation, as taught by Eisenring, to charge and discharge a quantum battery using Dirac function pulses of DC, in order to ensure loss-less transmission of energy ([0003]),  A person of ordinary skill would have had a reasonable expectation that the quantum battery of US’850, Lie 2 and Little Jr. could be discharged using a series of DC pulses successfully, as Eisenring demonstrates precedent in the art for discharging a quantum battery suing that method.  See MPEP 2143 (I) C.  Additionally, the duration of the pulses would be expected to be a matter of routine experimentation in the art.  Since US’850 teaches a quantum battery with the same structure as the instant quantum battery (as outlined in claim 1) and Lie 2, a person of ordinary skill in the art would have the reasonable expectation that the pulse width needed to trigger a discharge of the battery would be inherent based on the composition of the battery, and, in the course of implementing the method of Eisenring, routine experimentation would determine how long the pulses would need to be in order to discharge the battery of US’850.  See MPEP 2112 and 2144.05 (II). Additionally, since US’850 teaches an equivalent structure to Lie 2, US’850 inherently teaches that charge carriers are released from the bound states and excited to conduction bands by the trigger power and generate voltaic power with an oscillating electric field or pulse electric field in the superlattice.  See MPEP 2112.

Conclusion
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to RYAN P MURPHY whose telephone number is (571)272-9321. The examiner can normally be reached Monday - Friday 8:00 am - 5:30 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, Nicholas A Smith can be reached at (571) 272-8760. 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.




/RPM/Examiner, Art Unit 1752                                                                                                                                                                                           

/OSEI K AMPONSAH/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1752
Read full office action
Quantum Dipole Battery

Examiner Intelligence

Statute-Specific Performance

Office Action

Prosecution Timeline

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Prosecution Projections

Ready to respond to this office action?

Quantum Dipole Battery

Examiner Intelligence

Statute-Specific Performance

Office Action

Prosecution Timeline

Strategy Recommendation AI-generated — please review before filing

Prosecution Projections

Ready to respond to this office action?

Sign in with your work email
