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. Information Disclosure Statement The information disclosure statement (IDS) submitted on 11/16/2023 is being considered by the examiner. 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 14, 20 and 21 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 14 recites that “at least two pads of the plurality of pads are identical in shape or have a shape mirroring each other, whereby the contour of one of the two pads as seen from a rear side thereof corresponds to the contour of the respective other one of the two pads as seen from a front side thereof.” As drafted, it is unclear whether the “whereby” clause modifies only the alternative “have a shape mirroring each other,” or instead imposes an additional requirement on both alternatives, including the alternative that the pads “are identical in shape.” Thus, the claim does not clearly state whether mere identity of shape is sufficient, whether the stated front-side/rear-side contour correspondence is additionally required for identical shapes, or whether only mirrored shapes are intended. The scope of claim 14 is therefore unclear. Claim 20 recites, in the final clause, “wherein the method comprises the step of selecting a pad as the new pad which has a different surface relief than the replaced pad.” The phrase “the replaced pad” lacks proper antecedent basis. Earlier in claim 20, the claim refers to “the removed one or more pads,” and further recites either attaching “respective new pads” or “reattaching the removed one or more pads,” but the claim never introduces any “replaced pad.” This lack of antecedent basis is not merely a formal defect here. Claim 20 permits removal of “one or all” of the pads and permits either replacement with new pads or reattachment of removed pads. As drafted, it is therefore unclear whether “the replaced pad” refers to one removed pad, each removed pad, only a removed pad that is substituted by a new pad rather than reattached, or some other pad. Because the claim does not clearly identify the comparator pad for the recited “different surface relief,” the metes and bounds of claim 20 are unclear. REFERENCES RELIED UPON Reference 1: DE 10 2017 127 552 A1 Reference 2: US 5,174,457 Reference 3: US 6,848,486 B2 Reference 4: EP 1 805 073 B1 Reference 5: US 7,038,169 B2 Reference 6: US 6,524,681 B1 Reference 7: CN 103710639 A Reference 8: EP 2 298 840 A1 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. SUMMARY OF REJECTIONS Claims 1, 4-6, 13, 15, and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2. Claims 2 and 3 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 3. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 7. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 8. Claims 9 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 6. Claims 11 and 12 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of References 4 and 5. Claim 14 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 3. Claims 17 and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 3. Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 3 and Reference 6. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 6. Claim 21 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2, and further in view of Reference 6, Reference 4, and Reference 5. CLAIMS 1, 4-6, 13, 15, AND 16 ARE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2 ────────── A coupler face of a coupler head for a rail vehicle, comprising a plurality of contact surface segments which are distributed over the coupler face and elevated with respect to regions of the coupler face adjacent to the contact surface segments, wherein the plurality of contact surface segments is formed as a plurality of pads which are removably attached to the coupler face so as to be replaceable upon maintenance or repair services. Analysis Reference 1 discloses a coupler face in the form of contact surface 7 on front plate 10 of a rail-vehicle coupler head 13. Reference 1 further discloses a plurality of contact surface segments 5 distributed over the coupler face/contact surface 7. Reference 1 additionally teaches that those contact surface segments 5 are raised relative to adjacent regions, because the surrounding regions are formed as open recessed areas 3 and backset regions 9, so the force-transmitting segments 5 project relative to adjacent face portions. Reference 1 therefore teaches: a coupler face of a coupler head for a rail vehicle; a plurality of contact surface segments 5; the segments being distributed over the coupler face/contact surface 7; and the segments being elevated relative to adjacent regions 3/9 of the coupler face. Reference 1 does not expressly teach that the elevated segments 5 are implemented as removable pads. Reference 2 cures that deficiency. Reference 2 discloses, in railroad coupler equipment, a wear pad assembly 22 including a holder-tray 30, a removable wear pad 32, and a holder plate 34. Reference 2 further teaches that the removable wear pad 32 is held in place by bolts 60 and may be removed and replaced with a new wear pad during maintenance, without replacing the underlying supporting structure. Thus Reference 2 teaches a plurality of pads, removably attached so as to be replaceable upon maintenance or repair services. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art, at the time of the invention, to modify the raised contact surface segments 5 of Reference 1 so that those discrete, localized force-transmitting segments are provided as removable pads, in the manner taught by Reference 2, because Reference 1 already localizes front-face load transfer into separated raised segments 5, and Reference 2 teaches that wear-prone railroad coupler contact members are advantageously implemented as removable replaceable pads 32. The combination would have predictably yielded a coupler face having distributed raised contact pads that can be replaced when worn or damaged, while preserving the underlying front plate/coupler-head structure. Accordingly, claim 1 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine Reference 1 with Reference 2 to obtain the known maintenance advantage of replacing only the worn load-bearing contact members rather than the entire front plate or coupler-head face. Because Reference 1 already divides the face into discrete raised load-introduction regions 5, substituting removable pads for those discrete regions would have been a simple, predictable adaptation of Reference 2’s replaceable railroad wear pad concept to the face-contact environment of Reference 1, thereby reducing downtime, lowering repair cost, and simplifying field service. ────────── The coupler face according to claim 1, wherein the pads are each arranged in one or more recesses provided in the coupler face. Analysis As to the added limitation, Reference 2 teaches that removable wear pad 32 is received in holder-tray 30 on platform 38 and bounded by lateral edges 40 and rearward edge 42. This is a recessed receiving structure or pocket for the pad. Applying that known receiving-pocket arrangement to the removable pads substituted into the contact segments 5 of Reference 1 would have resulted in each pad being arranged in a recess in the coupler face/front plate 10. The modification is straightforward because, once the force-transmitting segments 5 of Reference 1 are converted into removable pads, a person of ordinary skill would have understood that each pad requires a defined seat or pocket in the face so that the pad can be located, supported, and retained. Accordingly, claim 4 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to seat each removable pad in a recess because Reference 2 teaches that a receiving pocket stabilizes the pad, supports the working surface, and facilitates removal and replacement. Using a recessed seat in the face of Reference 1 would have improved pad positioning, reduced shifting under load, and made maintenance more repeatable and reliable. ────────── The coupler face according to claim 4, wherein an inward-facing wall of the one or more recesses and at least a portion of a circumferential surface of each of the pads are designed with respect to each other so that the pads are centered relative to the coupler face when placed in the one or more recesses. Analysis As to the additional centering limitation, Reference 2 teaches that removable wear pad 32 is dimensioned to fit snugly within holder-tray 30 on platform 38, that lateral edges 40 prevent pad 32 from sliding laterally, and that the mitered edges 46 of pad 32 cooperate with beveled portion 44 of rearward edge 42. Those cooperating surrounding surfaces of the tray and pad constitute interacting inward-facing wall and pad-circumference structures that locate the pad in a predetermined position relative to the supporting structure. In the combined system, the recess walls in the front plate 10/coupler face 7 would likewise cooperate with the circumferential surfaces of the removable pads to center and locate the pads relative to the coupler face. Accordingly, claim 5 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to configure the recess walls and pad perimeters to center the pads because Reference 2 teaches the known benefit of a snug, laterally constrained fit for a removable railroad wear pad. Such centering would ensure proper alignment of the pad with the force-bearing region, improve assembly accuracy, and reduce lateral pad movement under operational loads. ────────── The coupler face according to claim 1, wherein the pads are made of non-hardened steel, an alloy, a cemented carbide material or a plastic material. Analysis Reference 2 further teaches that removable wear pad 32 may be made of a durable compound material composed of nylon and graphite, and also teaches that pad 32 may be made from a composite material or hard alloy such as manganese. Thus Reference 2 expressly teaches at least the claimed alternatives of an alloy and a plastic-type material. Claim 6 is written in the alternative, and satisfaction of one of the recited alternatives is sufficient. It would have been obvious to select for the removable face pads of the combined Reference 1/Reference 2 system any of the taught railroad-wear-pad materials, including an alloy or plastic/composite material, depending on expected wear, friction, lubrication, and service-life requirements. Accordingly, claim 6 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the wear-pad materials taught by Reference 2 because those materials are expressly disclosed for railroad coupler contact applications and are selected to increase lubrication, decrease friction, and improve pad wear life. A person of ordinary skill would have found it natural to use those same known pad materials when implementing removable face-contact pads on the coupler-face structure of Reference 1. ────────── The coupler face of claim 1, wherein the pads are elevated with respect to regions of the coupler face adjacent to the pads by between 4 mm and 6 mm. Analysis Reference 1 further teaches that the ground surface of the open recessed region 3 is backset relative to contact surface 7 by at least 2.5 mm or at least 5 mm. Reference 1 thus expressly identifies 5 mm as a suitable spacing value between the raised contact surface and adjacent regions. Once the raised contact surface segments 5 of Reference 1 are implemented as removable pads according to Reference 2, selecting the expressly taught 5 mm offset for the pads results in pads elevated by a value falling squarely within the claimed range of between 4 mm and 6 mm. Selection of a known, expressly taught working value from the prior art, where that value lies within the claimed range, would have been an obvious matter of routine design optimization. Accordingly, claim 13 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use an elevation of about 5 mm because Reference 1 already teaches that value as a suitable face-segment elevation relative to adjacent regions for snow/ice relief and force transmission. Selecting that known value when converting the segments to removable pads would have been a routine dimensional choice yielding the expected same clearance and contact behavior. ────────── A front plate for a coupler head comprising a coupler face comprising a plurality of contact surface segments which are distributed over the coupler face and elevated with respect to regions of the coupler face adjacent to the contact surface segments, wherein the plurality of contact surface segments is formed as a plurality of pads which are removably attached to the coupler face so as to be replaceable upon maintenance or repair services. Analysis Reference 1 expressly discloses a front plate 10 for a coupler head housing 11, the front plate and housing together forming a rail-vehicle coupler head 13. Reference 1 further teaches that front plate 10 includes contact surface 7 with distributed raised contact surface segments 5 relative to adjacent recessed regions 3/9. Reference 2 teaches that railroad coupler wear members can be provided as removable, replaceable pads 32 retained by holder plate 34 and bolts 60, and replaced during maintenance. For the same reasons explained in claim 1, it would have been obvious to implement the discrete raised contact surface segments 5 on the front plate 10 of Reference 1 as removable replaceable pads in the manner taught by Reference 2. The resulting structure is precisely a front plate for a coupler head comprising a coupler face having distributed raised contact pads removably attached for replacement during service. Accordingly, claim 15 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to combine the segmented front plate of Reference 1 with the replaceable railroad pad arrangement of Reference 2 to obtain a serviceable front plate in which worn face-contact members can be changed out without replacing the entire plate. This would reduce maintenance burden and preserve the core front-plate structure while retaining the localized load-transfer scheme of Reference 1. ────────── A coupler head having a coupler face, or a front plate having a coupler face, comprising a plurality of contact surface segments which are distributed over the coupler face and elevated with respect to regions of the coupler face adjacent to the contact surface segments, wherein the plurality of contact surface segments is formed as a plurality of pads which are removably attached to the coupler face so as to be replaceable upon maintenance or repair services, the coupler head comprising a coupling profile comprising a cone and a cup which allows the cone of the coupler head to be guided into and centered in the cup of an identical opposing coupler head during a coupling process, thereby aligning the two coupler heads. Analysis Reference 1 discloses a coupler head 13 having front plate 10 and contact surface 7 with distributed raised contact surface segments 5. Reference 1 also teaches coupling projection 1, disclosed as a coupling cone, and coupling opening 6, disclosed as the corresponding receiving opening/cup for an opposing coupler head. Reference 1 further teaches that the projection 1 of one coupler head is received by the opening 6 of the opposing coupler head during coupling. Reference 2 teaches the removable/replaceable railroad pad concept, as discussed above, by wear pad 32 removably retained by holder plate 34 and bolts 60 and replaceable during service. Thus Reference 1 supplies: a coupler head; a coupler face/front plate; distributed raised contact surface segments; and a coupling profile comprising a cone-like projection 1 and cup/opening 6 that guide and align opposing coupler heads during coupling. Reference 2 supplies the modification that the discrete raised face-contact regions are implemented as removable replaceable pads. The combination therefore teaches the full subject matter of claim 16. Accordingly, claim 16 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to modify the coupler head of Reference 1 with removable pads per Reference 2 for the same reasons stated for claim 1, namely simplified maintenance and reduced replacement cost, while leaving unchanged the already-known cone-and-cup alignment profile 1/6 of Reference 1. The combination would merely apply a known replaceable wear-member approach to the already-segmented coupler-face force-contact regions of Reference 1. CLAIMS 2 AND 3 ARE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3 ────────── The coupler face according to claim 1, wherein the pads each comprise at least one hole which is adapted to cooperate with a screw in order to releasably connect the pads to the coupler face by means of screws. Analysis Reference 1 additionally teaches screw openings 12 located in the contact surface segments 5. Reference 3 teaches a removable wear plate 4 having rear side 9 with threaded blind holes 13 and 20 to receive bolts for releasably fastening the wear plate to supporting body 2. Thus, Reference 3 expressly teaches a removable pad/plate comprising holes adapted to cooperate with screws or bolts for releasable attachment. It would have been obvious, when implementing the removable pads on the coupler face of Reference 1 according to Reference 2, to provide each pad with at least one screw-cooperating hole as taught by Reference 3, while using corresponding openings such as openings 12 in the front plate structure of Reference 1 for the fastener path. This would yield pads each having at least one hole adapted to cooperate with a screw in order to releasably connect the pads to the coupler face. Accordingly, claim 2 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use screw-hole fastening because Reference 3 teaches a simple, robust, serviceable way to mount a wear plate removably with threaded holes in the plate itself, while Reference 1 already shows fastener openings 12 in its face-segment region. Applying that known fastening arrangement to the removable pads of the combined Reference 1/Reference 2 structure would have predictably improved retention and ease of replacement. ────────── The coupler face according to claim 2, wherein the pads each comprise at least one threaded hole and the coupler face comprises corresponding through-holes through which screws can reach into the at least one threaded hole of the pads from a rear side of the pads in order to releasably connect the pads to the coupler face by screws. Analysis As to the added details, Reference 3 expressly teaches that wear plate 4 has threaded blind holes 13 and 20 on rear side 9, and that bolts are inserted through the body 2 to engage those threaded blind holes and affix the wear plate 4 on the front side. Reference 1 additionally teaches corresponding screw openings 12 in the face-segment region of front plate 10. Thus, the combined teachings disclose the exact fastening architecture of a pad with a threaded hole, and a supporting face/body with through-holes through which screws reach the pad’s threaded hole from the rear side of the pad to releasably secure the pad. Adapting the mounting arrangement of Reference 3 to the removable coupler-face pads of the combined Reference 1/Reference 2 structure would have yielded corresponding through-holes in the front plate/coupler face and threaded holes in the pads, with the screws reaching the threaded holes from the rear side of the pads. Accordingly, claim 3 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to adopt the rear-access threaded-hole fastening arrangement of Reference 3 because that arrangement provides a protected, releasable, mechanically reliable mounting for replaceable wear members. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that the arrangement is especially suitable for the removable face pads of Reference 1/Reference 2 because it allows pad replacement without redesigning the primary front plate and uses the known fastener openings 12 of Reference 1 in a predictable manner. CLAIM 7 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 7 ────────── The coupler face according to claim 6, wherein the pads are made of a material having a yield strength of at least 600 MPa. Analysis Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 teaches the subject matter of claims 1 and 6 as discussed above, including removable railroad-contact pads made of suitable pad materials. Reference 7 teaches steel for a rolling-stock coupler yoke having a yield strength of at least 690 MPa. Reference 7 is directed to rail-coupler structural material, and thus teaches the use of high-strength rail-coupler steel exceeding the claimed threshold of at least 600 MPa. It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill to select, for the removable pads of the combined Reference 1/Reference 2 system, a rail-coupler material meeting or exceeding 600 MPa yield strength, as taught by Reference 7, in order to withstand repeated impact, compressive loading, and wear in the rail-coupler environment. Accordingly, claim 7 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 7. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to select a known high-strength rail-coupler material because the pads in the combined system are force-transmitting railroad contact members and would be expected to benefit from the known strength and durability characteristics of Reference 7’s coupler steel. Choosing a material already taught for rolling-stock coupler service would have been a routine material-selection decision directed to durability and safety. CLAIM 8 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 8 ────────── The coupler face according to claim 1 wherein the pads are coated with a hydrophobic material. Analysis Reference 8 teaches an anti-icing coated metallic substrate in which the anti-icing material is a hydrophobic polymer. Thus Reference 8 teaches coating a metallic article with a hydrophobic anti-icing coating. Because the removable pads of the combined Reference 1/Reference 2 system are outwardly exposed coupler-face contact members used in snow/ice service conditions, it would have been obvious to coat those pads with the known hydrophobic anti-icing coating taught by Reference 8. Doing so would have reduced water retention and ice accumulation on the exposed pad surfaces. Accordingly, claim 8 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 8. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to apply a hydrophobic anti-icing coating because the very operating problem addressed by Reference 1 is snow and ice accumulation on coupler-face contact areas. Reference 8 teaches a known solution for reducing ice accumulation on metallic surfaces. Applying that known coating to the removable pads of the combined system would have been a predictable use of prior-art anti-icing technology to improve winter coupling performance. CLAIMS 9 AND 10 ARE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 6 ────────── The coupler face according to claim 1, wherein the pads each have a surface relief. Analysis Reference 6 teaches a patterned friction surface 18 having three-dimensional surface structures 20. Those three-dimensional structures create a non-flat, textured working surface and therefore teach a surface relief. It would have been obvious to provide the exposed working surfaces of the removable pads in the combined Reference 1/Reference 2 system with a known surface relief such as the three-dimensional patterned surface 18/20 of Reference 6, because surface texturing of a contact/wear face is a known way to influence wear behavior, frictional interaction, and surface condition management. Accordingly, claim 9 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 6. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to add a known surface relief because the pads of the combined system are exposed contact surfaces subject to repeated engagement. Reference 6 teaches that patterned surface features can be intentionally formed on a contact face. A person of ordinary skill would have recognized that applying such known surface texturing to replaceable contact pads is a predictable modification for controlling surface behavior and service performance. ────────── The coupler face according to claim 9, wherein the surface relief comprises one or more of: a pattern of erected polyhedrons, a pattern of pyramids or truncated pyramids, and a pattern of grooves which are arranged in parallel to one another. Analysis Reference 6 more specifically teaches that patterned surface 18 includes three-dimensional structures 20 in the form of pyramids, and also teaches truncated pyramids 20′. The claim is written in the alternative using “one or more of,” and thus the pyramids/truncated pyramids taught by Reference 6 satisfy the added limitation. Therefore, it would have been obvious to form the surface relief on the removable pads of the combined system as a pattern of erected polyhedrons, including pyramids or truncated pyramids, as taught by Reference 6. Accordingly, claim 10 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 6. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the specific pyramidal/truncated-pyramidal relief of Reference 6 because it is an expressly taught, known patterned surface geometry for a contact face. Once it was obvious to texture the removable pad surface, choosing one of the known geometries taught by Reference 6 would have been a routine design choice with predictable surface-pattern results. CLAIMS 11 AND 12 ARE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCES 4 AND 5 ────────── The coupler face according to claim 1, wherein the pads are each provided with a separate heating element. Analysis Reference 4 teaches plural heating elements 9, 11, 13, and 15 positioned between coupler head housing 2 and face plate 4, and further teaches that those heating elements are received in grooves 10, 12, and 14 of the face plate 4. Thus Reference 4 teaches separate heating elements associated with separate regions of a rail-coupler face plate. Applying the plural, region-specific heating arrangement of Reference 4 to the plural removable pads created by combining Reference 1 and Reference 2 would have resulted in each removable pad region being provided with its own corresponding heating element. The claimed requirement that the pads are each provided with a separate heating element is therefore rendered obvious by the combined teachings. Accordingly, claim 11 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of References 4 and 5. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to provide separate heating elements beneath the separate removable pads because Reference 4 teaches dividing heating into multiple face-plate heating regions rather than relying on a single generalized heater. In the combined system, localized heating under each replaceable pad would have been an efficient and predictable way to keep the relevant contact regions free of snow and ice while preserving serviceability of the pad structure. ────────── The coupler face according to claim 11, wherein the heating element comprises at least one of a flat sheet placed underneath the respective pad or a wire which is positioned underneath the respective pad in at least one of a correspondingly sized depression on the coupler face or in a correspondingly sized depression on a rear side of the respective pad. Analysis Reference 5 teaches a coupling head 1 having a heating element 3 placed in a recess of the coupling head and covered toward the outside. Reference 5 further teaches that the recess is precision fitted to the diameter of the heating element 3 and that the heating element is removably affixed. This teaches the wire-type alternative of claim 12, namely a heating element positioned in a correspondingly sized depression/recess on the coupler face/coupling head. Because claim 12 is written using “at least one of” the two alternatives, the wire-in-depression alternative taught by Reference 5 is sufficient. In the combined system, once separate heaters are provided for the removable pads per claim 11, it would have been obvious to implement each heater as a wire-like heating element positioned in a correspondingly sized depression/recess in the coupler face beneath the pad, as taught by Reference 5. Accordingly, claim 12 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of References 4 and 5. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the fitted recess/wire-heater arrangement of Reference 5 because Reference 5 expressly teaches that such an arrangement improves heat transfer and reduces assembly/disassembly expense in a central buffer coupling. Applying that known recess-mounted heater structure beneath each removable pad in the combined system would have been a predictable and advantageous way to localize heating while maintaining pad replaceability. CLAIM 14 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3 ────────── The coupler face of claim 1, wherein at least two pads of the plurality of pads are identical in shape or have a shape mirroring each other, whereby the contour of one of the two pads as seen from a rear side thereof corresponds to the contour of the respective other one of the two pads as seen from a front side thereof. Analysis Reference 1 teaches a coupler face layout having multiple separated contact regions 5 positioned around the coupling elements 1 and 6, including repeated corner-type positions. Reference 3 teaches multiple wear plates 4 placed adjacent to one another as repeated replaceable members, and teaches replacement practice in which a wear plate is restored to original dimensions so that it is fully equivalent to a new replacement plate. Those teachings would have suggested standardizing replaceable pads where possible so that at least two pads are identical in shape, or mirrored where the underlying geometry is opposite-handed. In the combined system, once the raised face-contact regions of Reference 1 are converted into removable replaceable pads according to Reference 2, a person of ordinary skill would have found it obvious to design at least two of those pads to be identical in shape, or mirror-related where appropriate to opposite-side locations, because repeated pad geometries simplify manufacture, stocking, interchangeability, and field replacement. The claim is written in the alternative using “identical in shape or have a shape mirroring each other,” and the identical-shape alternative is at least rendered obvious by the combined teachings. Accordingly, claim 14 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to standardize at least two pads as identical or mirror-related because replaceable wear members are ordinarily designed for interchangeability where geometry permits. Reference 3’s repeated, replaceable wear plates and Reference 1’s repeated contact-segment locations together would have motivated a person of ordinary skill to reduce spare-part variety, simplify stocking, and make replacement easier by using identical or mirrored pad geometries. CLAIMS 17 AND 19 ARE REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3 ────────── A pad for a coupler face of a coupler head for a rail vehicle comprising at least one threaded hole, wherein the threaded hole is a blind hole on a rear side of the pad. Analysis Reference 1 teaches the rail-vehicle coupler-face environment, namely contact surface 7 on front plate 10 of coupler head 13, with discrete face-contact regions 5. Reference 2 teaches a discrete removable railroad wear pad 32. Reference 3 teaches a removable wear plate 4 having threaded blind holes 13 and 20 on rear side 9. It would have been obvious to form the removable pad used on the coupler face of Reference 1, as suggested by Reference 2, with the known rear-side blind threaded-hole fastening arrangement of Reference 3. The resulting structure would be a pad for a coupler face of a coupler head for a rail vehicle, the pad comprising at least one threaded hole, the threaded hole being a blind hole on a rear side of the pad. Accordingly, claim 17 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to use the rear-side blind threaded-hole arrangement of Reference 3 in the railroad pad environment of References 1 and 2 because that arrangement provides a known, protected, removable attachment interface for a replaceable wear member. Adapting that mounting scheme to a removable railroad coupler-face pad would have been a predictable and mechanically sound design choice. ────────── A set of pads, wherein each of the pads comprises at least one threaded hole, wherein the threaded hole is a blind hole on a rear side of the pad, wherein at least two pads of the set of pads are identical in shape. Analysis Reference 1 teaches a plurality of separated face-contact locations 5 on a coupler face 7 of a rail coupler head. Reference 2 teaches removable railroad pads 32 used as replaceable wear members. Reference 3 teaches wear plates 4 with rear-side threaded blind holes 13 and 20 and further teaches a plurality of such wear plates mounted adjacent one another as repeated replaceable parts. From these teachings, it would have been obvious to provide a replacement set of removable pads for the multi-segment coupler face of Reference 1, each pad having at least one threaded blind hole on the rear side as taught by Reference 3, and with at least two pads being identical in shape to reduce part variety and permit interchangeability across repeated pad locations. A set of pads is merely the logical inventory package for replacing plural removable pads on a coupler face having plural contact regions. Accordingly, claim 19 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to supply the pads as a set and to make at least two identical in shape because the combined art teaches plural replaceable wear members associated with plural contact locations. A person of ordinary skill would have been motivated to reduce inventory complexity, improve interchangeability, and facilitate service by providing a replacement set containing repeated pad geometries where the coupler-face layout allows it. CLAIM 18 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 3 AND REFERENCE 6 ────────── The pad according to claim 17, wherein the pad has a surface relief, wherein the surface relief comprises one or both of: a pattern of one or more of erected polyhedrons, pyramids or truncated pyramids, and a pattern of grooves which are arranged in parallel to one another. Analysis Reference 6 teaches a patterned surface 18 having three-dimensional structures 20 including pyramids and truncated pyramids 20′. Those structures constitute a surface relief of the type recited in claim 18. Because the claim is written in the alternative using “one or both of,” the pyramidal/truncated-pyramidal relief taught by Reference 6 is sufficient. It would have been obvious to provide the removable coupler-face pad of claim 17 with the known patterned surface relief of Reference 6, thereby yielding a pad having a surface relief comprising erected polyhedrons such as pyramids or truncated pyramids. Accordingly, claim 18 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 3 and Reference 6. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to add the known relief geometry of Reference 6 to the pad of claim 17 because the pad is an exposed working/contact surface and prior-art patterned face geometries were known and available for use on such surfaces. Selecting a known pyramidal or truncated-pyramidal relief would have been a predictable way to tailor exposed pad-surface behavior without changing the underlying pad-mounting structure. CLAIM 20 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 6 ────────── A method of maintaining or repairing a coupler head of a rail vehicle, the coupler head having at least one of coupler face, or a front plate having a coupler face, comprising a plurality of contact surface segments which are distributed over the coupler face and elevated with respect to regions of the coupler face adjacent to the contact surface segments, wherein the plurality of contact surface segments is formed as a plurality of pads which are removably attached to the coupler face so as to be replaceable upon maintenance or repair services, the method comprising the steps of removing one or all of the plurality of pads from the coupler face and replacing the removed one or more pads by attaching respective new pads or reattaching the removed one or more pads, wherein the method comprises the step of selecting a pad as the new pad which has a different surface relief than the replaced pad. Analysis Reference 1 teaches the rail-vehicle coupler head/front plate environment with coupler face/contact surface 7 and distributed raised contact surface segments 5. Reference 2 teaches replacing a worn railroad coupler wear pad 32 by removing holder plate 34, removing the worn pad 32, inserting a new pad 32, and refastening the retaining structure with bolts 60. Reference 2 also teaches reversing/turning the removed pad and reinstalling it, which corresponds to reattaching a removed pad. Thus, References 1 and 2 together teach a method of maintaining or repairing a rail coupler having removable pads on a coupler face/front plate by removing one or more pads and replacing them with new pads or reattaching removed pads. As to the final method step, Reference 6 teaches alternative surface-relief patterns for a contact surface, including patterned three-dimensional structures 20 and truncated structures 20′. Therefore, once replacement pads are used in the combined Reference 1/Reference 2 system, it would have been obvious during maintenance to select a replacement pad having a different surface relief from the removed/replaced pad, in order to tailor the exposed contact surface geometry to the current operating preference or service condition. Accordingly, claim 20 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 6. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to select a replacement pad with a different surface relief because Reference 2 already teaches replacement of railroad coupler wear pads as a service operation, and Reference 6 teaches multiple known surface-relief options for a contact face. Once pads are replaceable, choosing among known alternative pad-surface patterns during maintenance would have been a natural, predictable service decision to tune surface behavior without replacing the underlying coupler-face structure. CLAIM 21 IS REJECTED UNDER 35 U.S.C. 103 AS BEING UNPATENTABLE OVER REFERENCE 1 IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 2, AND FURTHER IN VIEW OF REFERENCE 6, REFERENCE 4, AND REFERENCE 5 ────────── The method according to claim 20, comprising the step of placing a heating element underneath the new or reattached pad, wherein the step of placing the heating element underneath the new or reattached pad includes positioning a wire in one or both of a correspondingly sized depression on the coupler face and a correspondingly sized depression on a rear side of the pad. Analysis Reference 4 teaches placing heating elements 9, 11, 13, and 15 in grooves 10, 12, and 14 of face plate 4 of a rail coupler arrangement. Reference 5 further teaches a heating element 3 positioned in a recess of coupling head 1, the recess being precision fitted to the diameter of the heating element 3. This is a wire-like heater positioned in a correspondingly sized depression/recess of the coupler head/faceplate structure. Because claim 21 requires positioning a wire in one or both of a correspondingly sized depression on the coupler face and a correspondingly sized depression on a rear side of the pad, the coupler-face depression alternative taught by Reference 5 is sufficient. It would have been obvious, when replacing or reattaching a pad in the combined Reference 1/Reference 2 system, to install a heating element beneath that pad and to position a wire-type heating element in a fitted recess in the coupler face as taught by References 4 and 5, thereby localizing heat beneath the service-replaced pad. Accordingly, claim 21 is unpatentable over Reference 1 in view of Reference 2 and further in view of Reference 6, Reference 4, and Reference 5. Motivation to Combine It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art, before the effective filling date of the claimed invention, to add the under-pad heating step to the maintenance method because Reference 4 teaches multiple rail-coupler face-plate heating elements and Reference 5 teaches a recess-mounted, removable wire-like heating element in a coupling head. When pads are being removed and replaced during service, that service event is the natural time to place or replace an under-pad heating element. Using the known fitted recess arrangement of Reference 5 would have predictably improved heat transfer and simplified heater assembly/disassembly during the pad-maintenance operation. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JASON C SMITH whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4641 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 8:30 AM - 5:00 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, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Joseph Morano can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-6684 . 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. /Jason C Smith/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3615