Status under America Invents Act The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. 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 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. Rejections Based on Prior Art 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. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claim s 1-19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by Roein Peikar et al (US 2017/0156823) . In Figure 16C as annotated below, Roein Peikar et al disclose an orthodontic system comprised of a securing member (bracket) that is to be attached to a patient’s tooth wherein the securing member includes a base/backing and a protrusion that extends from the backing and includes a “fulcrum.” It is noted that applicant’s disclosed “fulcrum” is apparently first disclosed at paragraph [ 0 475 ] ( page 214 of the written description) and is identified as elements 5322, 5322’ in Figure 53 which is similar to the identified “fulcrum” in 16C below where a tool/lever can be wedged against the securing member to deform and release an attachment portion of the orthodontic appliance from the securing member/bracket. The Roein Peikar et al Figure 16C device further includes an orthodontic appliance having an attachment portion that is releaseably secured to the securing member/bracket. Figure 16C illustrates the orthodontic appliance in an attached state. In regard to claim 2, the Roein Peikar et al Figure 16C attachment portion as identified above snaps into an attached state when pushed into engagement in an occlusogingival direction (note paragraph [0167]). In regard to claims 3 and 4, note the above identified biasing portion and connector. The connector being at the end of the attachment portion extends in both gingivally and mesially /distally away from the attachment portion as specified by claims 3 and 4. In regard to claim 5, the identified “attachment portion” above is symmetrical about an occlusogingival plane. In regard to claim 6, the annotated Roein Peikar et al Figure 16C Figure above illustrates where a lever may be positioned to provide a leveraging force between the identified “fulcrum” and leveraging surface. In regard to the limitation that the “leveraging surface is within ten degrees of perpendicular to an occlusogingival direction” it is noted that in the Figure the identified leveraging surface appears perpendicular – moreover, the bracket/securing member is capable of being mounted to the patient’s tooth at any orientation. In regard to claim 7, note the identified “elongated slot” in Roein Peikar et al Figure 16C above. In regard to claims 8-19, note the annotated Roein Peikar et al Figures 16A and 16B that identify surfaces which meet the limitations of the presently claimed surfaces. 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 20-30 a re rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Roein Peikar et al (US 2017/0156823) in view of Oda et al (US 2021/0401548). Is set forth above Roein Peikar et al disclose in Figures 16A-16C an orthodontic system having a securing member (bracket) to which an attachment portion of an orthodontic appliance is resiliently attached. While Roein Peikar et al disclose how the two members of the system are attached to one another, they do not appear to disclose how the two members are detached from one another. Oda et al , however, for a similar orthodontic system teaches that an orthodontic system having an attachment portion that is resiliently attached to a securing member bracket may be detached from one another by using a tool/lever 300 that is wedged between a wall (fulcrum) of the securing member and the resiliently biased attachment portion of the orthodontic appliance (note particularly Figures 2E-2I ). To have used a tool/lever to detach the resilient attachment member from the securing member of Roein Peikar et al (as identified above) by wedging the tool/lever between wall of the securing member and the attachment member as taught by Oda et al to be an effective means of detaching such members would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. In regard to claims 21-30, note the structural elements identified above with respect to Roein Peikar et al in the annotated Figures above. Examiner Comment It is noted that the present application includes over 350 pages of written description and hundreds of Figures. When responding, applicant is requested to identify in the application specifically what is being claimed and where support for the limitations may be found. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Ralph Lewis whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-4712 . The examiner can normally be reached Monday-Friday from 9AM-4PM. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, please contact the examiner’s supervisor, Eric Rosen, at (571) 272-4964. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://portal.uspto.gov/external/portal. Should you have questions about access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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 . /RALPH A LEWIS/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3772 (571) 272-4712