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. Claim Objections Claim 1 is objected to because of the following informalities: “the vibration suppression piece” in line 21 should read “each vibration suppression piece”. Appropriate correction is required. Claim 3 is objected to because of the following informalities: “ the stud bolt side ” in line 6 should read “ a stud bolt side ” as it has not previously been recited . 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 1-3 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 recites the limitations “to which a stud bolt having a predetermined bolt diameter is inserted and fixed” in lines 1-2 of the preamble and “a body part…formed such that an entrance portion thereof is close to a thread crest of the inserted stud bolt” in lines 3-4. These limitations are indefinite as it is unclear if Applicant is attempting to require the stud bolt itself for infringement/anticipation to occur and thus attempting to claim a stud bolt assembly comprising a stud bolt and stud bolt fixture inserted and fixed together, or if Applicant is merely claiming the capabilities of the stud bolt fixture (e.g. to be configured to be used with such a stud bolt). Later recitations such as referring to an “insertion and fixation state” further add to the indefiniteness of these limitations. Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “to which a stud bolt having a predetermined bolt diameter is configured to be inserted and fixed” in lines 1-2 of the preamble and “a body part…formed such that an entrance portion thereof is configured to be close to a thread crest of the inserted stud bolt” in lines 3-4. Claim 3 recites the limitations “ which comes into contact with the thread of the stud bolt ” in lines 3-4 and again in lines 6-7 . These limitations are indefinite as it is unclear if Applicant is attempting to require the stud bolt itself for infringement/anticipation to occur and thus attempting to claim a stud bolt assembly comprising a stud bolt and stud bolt fixture inserted and fixed together, or if Applicant is merely claiming the capabilities of the stud bolt fixture (e.g. to be configured to be used with such a stud bolt). Appropriate clarification and correction is required. For examination purposes Examiner assumes Applicant intended to claim “ w hich is configured to come into contact with the thread of the stud bolt ” . Claim 2 is indefinite at least by virtue of depending on indefinite claim 1 (see above). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-2 , as best understood, are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Battie et al. (US 6,070,836) . With regard to claim 1 , Battie discloses a stud bolt fixture (as seen in Fig. 1-6 ) to which a stud bolt (10) having a predetermined bolt diameter is inserted and fixed (as seen in Figs. 4-6 and as interpreted in light of the above 112(b) rejection the fixture of Battie is capable/configured for such a use) , the stud bolt fixture comprising: a body part (including 4, 5, etc.) formed as an insertion part for the stud bolt (as seen in Figs. 4-6 it is capable of having such inserted therein) and formed such that an entrance portion (9) thereof is close to a thread crest of the inserted stud bolt (as seen in Figs. 4-6 and as interpreted in light of the above 112(b) rejection the fixture of Battie is capable/configured for such) ; a plurality of elastically deformable elastic engagement pieces (each including 11, 13, 14) provided around an axis of the stud bolt (as seen in Figs. 1-6) so as to sandwich the stud bolt inserted into the body part (as seen in Figs. 4-6) , and each including an elastic arm (11) projecting inwardly from an inner wall surface of the body part on a far side with respect to the entrance portion (as seen in Figs. 1-6) , and an engagement claw (13/14) for engaging a thread of the stud bolt at a distal end thereof (as seen in Figs. 4-6) ; and elastically deformable vibration suppression pieces (including each 15 and 16) provided at the same positions as the elastic engagement pieces around the axis of the stud bolt (as seen in Figs. 1-6, etc.) so as to sandwich the stud bolt inserted into the body part (as seen in Figs. 4-6) , and each including an elastic arm (15) projecting inwardly from the inner wall surface on the far side with respect to the elastic engagement piece (as seen in Figs. 1-6) , and a pressing surface (i.e. of 16) for pressing the thread of the stud bolt at a distal end thereof (as seen in Figs. 4-6) , wherein the pressing surface includes an inner-peripheral-side distal end surface (i.e. the inner peripheral surface thereof) located on an inner peripheral side of the body part with respect to the engagement claw (as seen in Figs. 1-6) , and in an insertion and fixation state (e.g. a state such as in Fig. 6) where the stud bolt is inserted into the body part and engaged by the engagement claws (as seen in Fig. 6) , each vibration suppression piece is pushed out toward an outer peripheral side by the thread of the stud bolt to become elastically deformed (as seen in Fig. 6) such that the vibration suppression piece is displaced from the inner peripheral side toward the outer peripheral side to a greater extent than the elastic engagement piece (as seen in Figs. 6 as they extend further into the opening receiving the stud bolt they will have to be displaced a greater amount) , whereby the pressing surface presses the stud bolt toward the inner peripheral side more strongly than the elastic engagement piece (e.g. as seen in Figs. 1-6 and as Applicant has not claimed it is used with a specific sized bolt such that a bolt that barely deforms the elastic engagement pieces would result in such) . With regard to claim 2 , Battie discloses that the body part includes a deformation restriction portion (i.e. the upper 11/13/14s) which comes into contact with the vibration suppression pieces to prevent further elastic deformation of the vibration suppression pieces toward the outer peripheral side when the vibration suppression pieces become elastically deformed toward the outer peripheral side (as seen in Figs. 6, etc.) . 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. This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 3, as best understood, is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Battie et al. (US 6,070,836) in view of Iwahara et al. (US 2014/0321936) . With regard to claim 3 , Battie fails to disclose that a distal end portion of each vibration suppression piece on which the pressing surface is formed includes, as seen in the axial direction of the inserted stud bolt, a first extension portion which comes into contact with the thread of the stud bolt and extends tangentially to a contact point thereof, and a second extension portion which bends from one end side of the first extension portion and extends toward the stud bolt side, which comes into contact with the thread of the stud bolt at a first extension portion-side wall surface on an extending distal end side thereof, and which is shorter than the first extension portion. Iwahara discloses a similar stud bolt fixture (1) with vibration suppression pieces (two upper or two lower 13s) and elastic engagement pieces (the other of two upper or two lower 13s), wherein a distal end portion of each vibration suppression piece on which the pressing surface is formed includes, as seen in the axial direction of the inserted stud bolt, a first extension portion (e.g. 13v1 plus the rest of the 13 not including 13v2) which comes into contact with the thread of the stud bolt and extends tangentially to a contact point thereof, and a second extension portion (e.g. 13v2) which bends from one end side of the first extension portion and extends toward the stud bolt side (as seen in Figs. 13, etc.) , which comes into contact with the thread of the stud bolt at a first extension portion-side wall surface on an extending distal end side thereof (as seen in Figs. 12, etc.) , and which is shorter than the first extension portion (as seen in Figs, 12, 13, etc.) . It would have been considered obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art, at the time the invention was filed, to have modified the device of Battie such that a distal end portion of each vibration suppression piece on which the pressing surface is formed includes, as seen in the axial direction of the inserted stud bolt, a first extension portion which comes into contact with the thread of the stud bolt and extends tangentially to a contact point thereof, and a second extension portion which bends from one end side of the first extension portion and extends toward the stud bolt side, which comes into contact with the thread of the stud bolt at a first extension portion- side wall surface on an extending distal end side thereof, and which is shorter than the first extension portion as taught by Iwahara. Such a modification would provide the expected benefit of better gripping of the stud bolt by having the curved portions. Examiner’s Recommendations In the interest of compact prosecution, Examiner recommends claiming additional structural specifics such as the shape of the vibration suppression pieces, the configuration of the deformation restriction portion, and the shape of the extension portions of both the vibration suppression pieces and those of the elastic engagement pieces. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure and provide additional examples of stud bolt fixtures having many of the same or similar claimed and disclosed features. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT NICHOLAS L FOSTER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-5354 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 9am-5pm . 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 Kristina Fulton can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-7376 . 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. /NICHOLAS L FOSTER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3675