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. Claim Objections Claim 7 is objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 7 includes the limitation “group consisting of LiBi and Li3Bi” that should be corrected to “group consisting of LiBi and Li 3 Bi”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b ) CONCLUSION.— The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the appl icant regards as his invention. Claims 1-11 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. Claim 1 includes the limitation “Bi as a main component of an active material” in line7. It is unclear what characteristic, such as mass content, molar content, or electrochemical characteristic, of Bi is described by the limitation “main component.” Claims 2-11 are also rejected based on their dependency on claim 1. Claim 6 includes the limitation “a Bi simple substance” in line 2. It is unclear what a “Bi simple substance” limits, such as metallic Bi, a Bi based alloy, or other Bi based substance. Claim 8 includes the limitation “a Bi simple substance as an active material” in line 2. It is unclear what a “Bi simple substance” limits, such as metallic Bi, a Bi based alloy, or other Bi based substance. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-3, 6-9, and 11 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Manthiram et al. ( US - 20160233491 - A1 ), hereinafter Manthiram , as cited in the IDS. Regarding claim 1, Manthiram teaches a battery comprising: a first electrode ([0034] anode) ; a second electrode ([0038] cathode) ; and an electrolytic solution [0041] electrolyte) , wherein the first electrode comprises a current collector and an active material layer ([0034]-[0035]) , the active material layer contains Bi as a main component of an anode active material ([0034]-[0035]; fig. 4A Bi-C active material wherein the C is a conductive additive; figs. 5A and 6A [0021]-[0022]) , and the electrolytic solution contains at least one selected from the group consisting of vinylene carbonate and fluoroethylene carbonate ([0041] the electrolyte can contain a carbonate; [0058] fluoroethylene carbonate). Regarding claim 2, Manthiram teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram also teaches wherein the active material has a density of from 6.0 g/cm 3 to 9.8 g/cm 3 , inclusive, wherein when the first electrode is a negative electrode, the density of the active material is a density of the active material of the battery in a fully discharged state, and when the first electrode is a positive electrode, the density of the active material is a density of the active material of the battery in a fully charged state (([0034]-[0035]; fig. 4A Bi-C anode active material wherein the C is a conductive additive Bismuth inherently has a density of 9.8 g/cm 3 , see supplemental material) . Regarding claim 3, Manthiram teaches all of the limitations of claim 2. Manthiram also teaches wherein the density of the active material is from 7.5 g/cm 3 to 9.8 g/cm 3 , inclusive (([0034] -[ 0035]; fig. 4A Bi-C anode active material wherein the C is a conductive additive Bismuth inherently has a density of 9.8 g/cm 3 , see supplemental material) . Regarding claim 6, Manthiram teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram also teaches wherein the active material layer contains a Bi simple substance (([0034] -[ 0035]; fig. 4A Bi-C anode active material wherein the C is a conductive additive). Regarding claim 7, Manthiram teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram also teaches wherein the active material layer contains at least one selected from the group consisting of LiBi and Li3Bi (([0034] -[ 0035]; fig. 4A Bi-C anode active material wherein the C is a conductive additive; [0034] lithiated compound of LiBi or Li 3 Bi during charge and discharge). Regarding claim 8, Manthiram teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram also teaches w herein the active material layer contains only a Bi simple substance as an active material (([0034] -[ 0035]; fig. 4A Bi-C anode active material wherein the C is a conductive additive). Regarding claim 9, Manthiram teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram also teaches wherein the current collector contains Cu ([0057] copper foil) . Regarding claim 11, Manthiram t e aches all of the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram also teaches wherein the first electrode is a negative electrode ([0034] anode) , and the second electrode is a positive electrode ([0038] cathode) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claim s 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthiram , as applied to claim 1 above. Regarding claim 4, Manthiram teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram fails to explicitly teach wherein, in an X-ray diffraction pattern of the active material layer, the X-ray diffraction pattern of the active material layer being obtained by surface X-ray diffraction measurement using a Cu-K α ray, an intensity ratio I(2)/I(1) of an intensity I(2) to an intensity I(1) is more than or equal to 0.29, where the intensity I(1) is a height intensity of a maximum peak present in a range of a diffraction angle 2θ of from 26° to 28°, inclusive, and the intensity I(2) is a height intensity of a maximum peak present in a range of a diffraction angle of 2 of from 37° to 39°, inclusive in the body of the disclosure. However, Manthiram does teach an x-ray diffraction pattern of the active material layer in figure 4a. This figure appears to show an X-ray diffraction pattern of the active material layer, the X-ray diffraction pattern of the active material layer being obtained by surface X-ray diffraction measurement using a Cu-K α ray, an intensity ratio I(2)/I(1) of an intensity I(2) to an intensity I(1) is more than or equal to 0.29, where the intensity I(1) is a height intensity of a maximum peak present in a range of a diffraction angle 2θ of from 26° to 28°, inclusive, and the intensity I(2) is a height intensity of a maximum peak present in a range of a diffraction angle of 2 of from 37° to 39°, inclusive ([0016]; see fig. 4A, either Bi-C or Bi 0.57 Sb 0.43 -C wherein Bi is the main component appears to overlap the claimed intensity ratio) . In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . Regarding claim 5, Manthiram teaches all of the limitations of claim 4. Manthiram also teaches wherein the intensity ratio I(2)/ I( 1) is less than or equal to 0.57 ([0016]; see fig. 4A, either Bi-C or Bi 0.57 Sb 0.43 -C wherein Bi is the main component appears to overlap the claimed intensity ratio) . In the case where the claimed ranges "overlap or lie inside ranges disclosed by the prior art" a prima facie case of obviousness exists. In re Wertheim, 541 F.2d 257, 191 USPQ 90 (CCPA 1976); In re Woodruff, 919 F.2d 1575, 16 USPQ2d 1934 (Fed. Cir. 1990) . Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Manthiram , as applied to claim 1 above, and further in view of Arthur , T., et al. Electrochemistry Communications Vol. 16 , No. 1, pages 103-106, hereinafter Arthur , as cited in the IDS . Regarding claim 10, Manthiram teaches all of the limitations of claim 1. Manthiram fails to teach wherein the active material layer is a plating layer. Arthur is considered analogous to the claimed invention because they are in the same field of b ismuth anodes for batteries (Abstract). Arthur teaches wherein the active material layer is a plating layer ( Abstract electrodeposited) . Therefore, it would have been obvious to someone of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified Manthiram such that the Bi anode is formed by electrodeposition as a plating layer such as in Arthur. Doing so is a known method of forming a bismuth anode, and would yield the predictable result of a bismuth anode with a reasonable expectation of success. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MADISON L KYLE whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-0164 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9 AM - 5 PM ET . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Niki Bakhtiari can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-3433 . 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. /M.L.K./ Examiner, Art Unit 1722 /ANCA EOFF/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1722