THE UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICIL
`
`Application No.
`
`i0,=’6l5.0S4
`
`Confirmation N0: 7996
`
`Applicalnfls):
`
`John Manes
`
`Filed:
`
`8 July 2003
`
`Group A11 Unit:
`
`3623
`
`Examiner:
`
`CHONG Cmz, Nadja
`
`Title:
`
`INFORMATION TECHT\iOLOGY SERVICE REQUEST
`L.E\/EL OF SERWCE MONITOR
`
`Docket No:
`
`2560.055 £50»-O3~002)
`
`Customer No;
`
`60826
`
`Mail Stop Amendment
`Commissioxiei‘ of Patents
`PO. Box 1450
`
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`AMENl)MEN’l" AND RESPONSE UiV’I)'ER 37 Cl-IR.
`
`
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`In response to the Office Action mailed on 19 November 2008, please amend the above-
`
`idemified application as follows:
`
`Claim amendments begin on page 2 ofthis paper.
`
`Remarks begin on page 10 of this paper.
`
`Exhibit 2004
`
`ServiceN0w V. HP
`
`IPR2015—O071 8
`
`

`
`Application No. l (.1.-‘till. 5.054
`its‘, 2(.l(.l9
`Al"tlK3D(lll'lt’l.ti dated FCl)1UZll"j
`Reply to Oi ice Action ol‘No\:'entbcr i9, 2(_l()$
`
`Amendments to the Claims:
`
`This listing of claims replaces all prior listings, and versions. of claims in the application.
`
`Listing of Claims:
`
`\
`pl‘
`7
`$9
`.1. {Currentlv amendedl A method. in a. com .uter svstem. for monitoring service tickets
`
`for information technology service providers to ensure that levels of service required to be
`
`provided to a customer pursuant to an a contractual agreement between the customer and a
`
`service provider, are met, the method comprising:
`
`inspecting a service ticket in a database to determine a deadline for when a problem
`
`associated with the service ticket must be resolved. with the deadline based ti on a contractuallv
`
`determined severit of the roblem and a corrcs ondin I contractuall * re nired time for
`
`
`
`
`displaying, on a display device at the help desk. a graphical display populated with
`
`representations of service tickets that have reached a predetermined percentage of the time
`
`before their due date;
`
`determining a deadline approaching alert time at which a help desk user must be notified
`
`that the deadline for resolving the problem must be met; and
`
`alerting the help desk user that the deadline for resolving the problem is approaching
`
`when the deadline approaching alert time is reached.
`
`2.
`
`(Original) The method as recited in claim 1, further comprising:
`
`determining a status update interval for the service ticket; and
`
`responsive to a determination that the problem has not been resolved by the deadline,
`
`determining a first status update alert time to alert the help desk user that a status update needs to
`
`he sent to the customer.
`
`in)
`
`

`
`Application No. lit/€>l5.0S4
`Aiiicndiiieiit dated Fehruar)’ iii‘, 2{)i>9
`"Reply to ()lfiice Action oi‘No\'ember l9, 2(‘t(,>r‘j~‘
`
`3.
`
`(Original) The method as recited in claim 2, further comprising:
`
`alerting the help desk user that a status update is approaching when the first status update
`
`alert time occurs.
`
`4.
`
`(Original) The method as recited in claim 3, further comprising:
`
`responsive to a determination that the problem has not been resol\»‘ed after a status update
`
`time has passed, determining a time to alert the help desk user that a time to provide a new status
`
`update to the customer is approaching and alerting the help desk user prior to the time to provide‘
`
`the new status update.
`
`5.
`
`(Original) The method as recited in claim l._ wherein alerting the help desk ‘user that
`
`the deadline for resolving the problem is approaching when the deadline approaching alert time
`
`is reached comprises sending an alert wherein the alert includes an identity of the service ticket
`
`and the deadline for when a problem associated with the service ticket must be resolved.
`
`6. (Original) The method as recited in claim 5, wherein the alert comprises a pop~up
`
`window.
`
`7.
`
`(Original) The method as recited in claim 6, wherein the pop—up window is displayed
`
`on top of all other windows that are open on the help desk user‘s data processing system.
`
`8.
`
`(Original) The method as recited in claim 5, wherein the alert comprises an audio
`
`9.
`
`(Original) The method as recited in claim 5, wherein the alert comprises a graphical
`
`

`
`l{),«‘6 15.054
`Applicatitin No.
`Ainendment dated Felmiary l8, 2t')(>9
`Reply to (jlftice Action ol‘Novetnber l9. 2(il{.)8
`
`10.
`
`(Original) The method as recited in claim l, wherein the deadline for when a
`
`problem associated with the service ticket must be resolved is detemrined by consulting a ticket
`
`severity table.
`
`l l. (Original) The method as recited in claim 30. wherein the ticket severity table is
`
`popuiated in accordance with a level of service agreement between the customer and the
`
`information technology provider.
`
`12.
`
`(Currently amended) A computer program product in a computer readable media
`
`for use in a data processing system for monitoring service tickets for iinfonnation technology
`
`service providers to ensure that levels of service required to he provided to a customer pursuant
`
`to an a contractual agreement between the customer and a service provider, are met, the
`
`computer program product comprising:
`
`first instmctions for inspecting a service ticket in a database to determine a deadline for
`
`when a problem associated with the service ticket must be resolved. with the deadline based
`
`u ion a eontraetuall ‘ determined severit
`
`
`
`
`' of the noblcm and a eorres vondino contractual lv
`
`
`
`
`
`
`required time For resolution of the problem;
`
`display instructions for displaying, on a display device at the help desk, a grapliical
`
`display populated with representations of service tickets that have reached a predetermined
`
`percentage of the time before their due date;
`
`second instructions for determining an deadline approaching alert time at which a help
`
`desk user must be notified that the deadline for resolving the problem must be met; and
`
`third instructions for alerting the help desk user that the deadline for resolving the
`
`problern. is approaching when the deadline approaching alert time
`
`reached.
`
`

`
`ll)./6 15.054
`Application No.
`Amendment dated Fel)ruary l8. 2(l()9
`Reply to (f)t’l'iec Action oi‘Noveinher I9. 2()t)iri
`
`l3.
`
`(Original) The computer program product as recited in claim l2, ftiitl1e1' comprising:
`
`fourth instructions for determining a status update interval for the service ticket; and
`
`fifth instructions. responsi\='c to a determination that the problem has not been resolved by
`
`the deadline, for determining a first status update alert time to alert the help desk user that a
`
`status update needs to be sent to the customer.
`
`l4. (Original) The computer program product as recited in claim 13. further comprising:
`
`sixth instructions for alerting the help desk user that a status update is approaching when
`
`the inst status update alert time occurs.
`
`35.
`
`(Oiwginali) The computer program product recited in claim I4. further comprising:
`
`seventh instructions. respoensive to a determination that the problem has not been resolved
`
`after a status update time has passed. for determining a time to alert the help desk user that a time
`
`to proxride a new status update to the customer is approaching and alerting the help desk user
`
`prior to the time to provide the new status update.
`
`16.
`
`(Original) The computer program product as recited in claim 12, wherein alerting
`
`the help desk user that the deadline for resolving the problem is approaching when the deadline
`
`approaching alert time is reached comprises sending an alert wherein the alert includes an
`
`identity of the service ticket and the deadline for when a problem associated with the service
`
`ticket must be resolved.
`
`17. (Original) The computer program product as recited in claim 16, wherein the alert
`
`comprises a pop-up window.
`
`18. (Original) The computer program product as recited in claim 17, wherein the pop—up
`
`window is displayed on top of all other windows that are open on the help desk user's data
`
`processing system.
`
`U1
`
`

`
`Application No. lit/6l5.l)54
`Anieridmerit dated Fssiwtiary l8. 2(l()9
`Reply to ([)t"l'ice Action ol‘Novembcr l9. 2008
`
`19. (Canceled)
`
`20.
`
`(Original) The computer program product as recited in claim i6, wherein the alert
`
`comprises a graphical alert.
`
`Cal. (Originai) The computer program product as recited in claim 12, wherein the
`
`deadline for when a problem associated with the service ticket must be resolved is determined by
`
`consulting a ticket severity table.
`
`22. (Original) The computer program product as recited in claim 2 I , wherein the ticket
`
`severity table is populated in accordance with a level of service agreement between the customer
`
`and the information technology provider.
`
`23. (Currently amended) A system in a computer readable media for use in a data
`
`processing system For monitoring service tickets For information technology service providers to
`
`ensure that levels of service required to be provided to a customer pursuant to an a contractual
`
`agreement between the customer and a service provider, are met, the system comprising:
`
`first means for inspecting a service ticket in a database to determine a deadline for when a
`
`problem associated with the service ticket must be resolved. with the deadline based upon a
`
`contractuallv determined severity of the problem and a corresponding contractually required time
`
` ;
`
`display means for generating a display, on a display device at the help desk, a graphical
`
`display populated with representations of service tickets that have reached a predetermined
`
`percentage of the time before their due date;
`
`second means for determining an deadline approaching alert time at which a help desk
`
`user must be notified that the deadline for resolving the problem must be met: and
`
`third means for alerting the help desk user that the deadline for resolvitig the problem is
`
`approaching when the deadline approaching alert time is reached.
`
`6
`
`

`
`ltlf(>l5.(?5a’t
`Application No.
`Amendrnem dated Fcl>,i‘t.iary l8. 2(l()9
`Reply to (f,)l‘licc Action ot"l\lovetnber I9, Ztltlél
`
`24. (Original) The system as recited in claim 23, further comprising;
`
`fourth means for determining a status update interval for the service ticket; and
`
`fifth means. responsive to a determination that the problem has not been resolved by the
`
`deadline, for determining a first status update alert time to alert the help desk user that a status
`
`update needs to be sent to the Customer.
`
`*
`_,
`.
`5
`P
`-
`25. Orirzinal) The s stem as recited in claim 24, furthereom rising:
`
`sixth means for alerting the help desk user that a status update is approaching when the
`
`first status update alert time occurs.
`
`26.
`
`(Original) The system as recited in claim 25, further comprising:
`
`seventh means. responsive to a determination that the problem has not been resolved after
`
`a status update time has passed, for determining a time to alert the help desk user that a time to
`
`provide anew status update to the customer is approaching and alerting the help desk user prior
`
`to the time to provide the new status update.
`
`27. (Original) The system as recited in claim 23, wherein alerting the help desk user that
`
`the deadline for resolving the problem is approaching when the deadline approaching alert time
`
`is reached comprises sending an alert wherein the alert includes an identity of the service ticket
`
`and the deadline for when a problem associated with the service ticket must be resolved.
`
`28. (Original) The system as recited in claim 27, wherein the alert comprises a pop—up
`
`wi ndow.
`
`29. (Original) The system as recited in claim 28, wherein the pop-up window is
`
`displayed on top of all other windows that are open on the help desk user's data processing
`
`system.
`
`

`
`Appliczititin No. l (356 l 5.054
`Amendment dated Felaruary its, 2t)(l9
`Reply to ()t'l"ice Action ot‘No\’emher I9. 2(l()él
`
`30. (iflrigiuall The system as recited in claim 37, wherein the alert coniprises an audio
`
`alert.
`
`3l. (Canceled)
`
`32. (Original) The system recited in claim 23. wherein the clcacllinc for when a
`
`problem associated with the service ticket must be resolved is determined by consulting a ticket
`
`severity table.
`
`33.
`
`(Original) The system as recited in claim 32, wherein the ticket severity table is
`
`populated in accordance with a level of service agreement between the customer and the
`
`information technology provider.
`
`34. (Currently amended) A system for monitoring service tickets in order to provide
`
`reminders to a help desk user ofinipendilng times for actions, the times For actions being
`
`provided according to a level of service required to be provided to a. customer pursuant to a
`
`contract between the customer and a service provider, the system comprising:
`
`a monitoring sewer;
`
`a database; and
`
`a help desk client;
`
`wliereiri the database stores tickets and information regarding ticket types, ticket
`
`severities based on the contract, and corresponding contractually required times for actions to be
`
`performed for each of the ticket types and ticket scveritics; the monitoring server monitors
`
`tickets in the database, determines when times for actions are approaching, and sends alerts to
`
`the help desk client alerting the help desk user that a time to take a specified action is
`
`approacliing; and the help desk client displays active tickets to a help desk user and provides
`
`alerts received from the monitoring server to the help desk user.
`
`00
`
`

`
`Application No. 105615.054
`Ai31eml::1e1'1t dated Fel>i'Ll2ti’y léx’, 2(l(l9
`Reply to ()tliee Action ot"No\'ember l9. 2(l(‘Iz<
`
`35.
`
`(Original) The system as recited in claim 34, wherein the times are determined using
`
`a centralized clock.
`
`36. — 37. (Canceled)
`
`38. (Previously presented) The system as recited in claim 34, wherein the active tickets
`
`are displayed in a grid.
`
`39.
`
`W
`3 P
`(Previousl I
`
`.
`3
`resented‘) The s /stem as recited in claim 34, wherein the active tickets
`
`displayed are only those that have reached a predetermined percentage of the time before their
`
`due date.
`
`40. (Previously presented) The system as recited in claim 39, wherein the percentage of
`
`time is 75% ofthe time specified in an associated LOS.
`
`41.
`
`(‘Previously presented) The system as recited in claim 39, wherein the display may be
`
`minimized at the election of the user.
`
`

`
`1 {.1/615.054
`A1)[’JllL'Elll(m N0.
`Aniendment datecl Fel1i‘t1zu'}' l8, 2l.3{)9
`Reply to (‘_)flice Action of November l9, 3008
`
`REMARKS
`
`(J1
`Claims l—l8, 2G~30. 32-3 , and 38-41 are iendinv and will remain )€i‘ldll1'.Z in the
`*
`P
`e
`c
`
`a 3 i. lieation after cntr I of this amendment. Entry’ of this Amendment reconsideration, and
`l P
`)
`.
`»
`
`allowance of the pending claims is respectfully requested.
`
`Claim Rejections
`
`Claims l~l 8, 20-30, 32-35 and 38-41 are pending.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims 1-1} under 35 U.S.C.
`
`101 as being directed to non-
`
`statutory subject matter. The Examine set forth that the process must entail the use of 2: specific
`
`machine or transfo1fm.ati.on ofan article which must impose tneaningftll limits on the claim‘s’
`
`scope to impart-gvatent eligibility. Applicants have amended independent claim l and asse
`
`ttat
`
`claim l as now present is tied to the use eta specific machine. Claim l hats been amended to
`
`recite in— part “A method in a computer system..." Applicants respcctt'ully request the
`
`Examiner to withdraw the rejection ofindepcndent claim l under 35 U.S.C. § 10!.
`
`Regarding claims 2-1 l, as these claims depend either directly or indirectly fiom
`
`independent claim 1, and therel‘ei‘c iticemoratc all the limitatiens of claim 1 tliereiii, fer the
`
`reasons set forth above with respect to claim l, Applicants respectfully request the Ex:».1mine1' to
`
`withdraw the rejection of claims 2-11 under 35 U.S.C.
`
`101.
`
`The Examiner rejected claims l, l2 and 23 under 35 U.S.C. §l03(ia) as being
`
`unpatentable ever U.S. patent 6,2} 9,648 to Jones et al. in V’lCW of Scheifler et al.,
`
`“ he X
`
`Window System,” published in AC M Transactions on Gt'aphi.es, Vol. 5, No. 2, April 1996.‘
`
`Claims 2-1 l, 13-1
`
`20-22, 24—30, 32-35 and 39-40 were rejected under 35 U.S.C.
`
`§l03(a) as being unpatentalale over Jones in View ofScheil’ler and U.S. pre~grant publication
`
`200.1/0123983 by Riley ct at.
`
`10
`
`

`
`Application No. ll)/6 15.054
`Atnendnicnt dated February l?%, 2009
`Reply to (‘)t'lice Action ot‘Nm~'embet 19c 2{}t);s‘
`
`Claims 38 and 41 were rcjeetedunder 35 U.S.C. §l03(ai) as being unpatentable over
`
`Jones in view of Scheiflcr in View of Riley and further in V"lC\N ofQue1‘cia et al., “The Definitive
`
`Guides to the X Window System. 0 ‘RC1./if dé .»t.s'.s'c1cric1res, Inc., Voilume Three, Motif Edition.
`
`1993.
`
`In response to the office action, the independent claims have been amended such that the
`
`claims are now directed to subject matter that is not shown or suggested in any of the cited
`
`references. Paraphrased, the independent claims now recite a methodology by which to ensure
`
`that an agreed-upon level of service is provided to a customer wherein the identification of the
`
`severity of a problem and corresponding time to fix the problem is predicated upon the
`
`contractual agreement between the customer and the service provider.
`
`Support for the claim amendments can at least be found in paragraph [Q0264], which states
`
`that “The severity assigned to a ticket is typically obtained from a severity table that has been
`
`populated based on a contractual agreement between the IT provider and the customer.
`
`Also. . .the resolution time to fix the problem is obtained based on the LOS (Level of Service)
`
`agreement”.
`
`The amended claims, and the claims that depend from them, traverse the rejection
`
`because no reference or combination of references show or suggest a method or apparatus by
`
`which the deadline is “based upon a contractually determined severity of the problem and a
`
`corresponding contractually required time for resolution of the problem”.
`
`Jones is generally directed to a device for monitoring the progress of a trouble ticket,
`
`wherein the times at which notifications are generated are specified by thresholds that are set by
`
`operators at a customer service center.
`
`in Jones, the text in column 3, lines 66-67 states that the
`
`time at which an alert is generated is selected fin‘ the customer service center. Stated another
`
`way, Jones teaches that the determination of how and when to provide customer service is
`
`determined entirely and exclusively by the service provider without regard to the customer to
`
`who service is to be provided. Jones does not teach or disclose that original deadline set for
`
`11
`
`

`
`l 056 15.054
`Applieation No.
`Amendment dated Feluuary l8, 2009
`Reply to ()l'lice Action ofNovemher 19. Ellllfx’
`
`completing the handling, of the problem be base upon a contractual agreement l‘ron1 which the
`
`severity of the problem and the Corresponding time deadline are determined, as the applicant’s
`
`amended claims now require.
`
`In Riley, the text in paragraplls [01 l6}-[0121] states that prior to ‘dSSl,gfll11g a time or
`
`speed in which the service request should be handled, “the operator analyzes the service request
`
`in order to prioritize it. The resulting prioritization is used to classify the request against all
`
`other /‘ea/z!e.s‘Z.s' made by the Service Desk customers. . 4” (emphasis added). Riley thus clearly
`
`teaches that the determination of the priority or severity of the problem is not based upon the
`
`contractual agreement between the customer, but rather the severity is based upon 21 eomp2u‘ison
`
`of the problem with all other requests made to the help degk, 1‘eg2irdless of which customer made
`
`the request and regardless of any prior agreements.
`
`The Applicant respectfully contends that the amended claims traverse the rejections and
`
`place the claims in condition for allowance. Reconsideration of the claims is therefore
`
`1"espectfi1lly requested.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`// ROb€IT
`
`2/
`
`Robert H. Kelly
`Reg. No. 33,922
`
`KELLY & KRA.USl?£, LP.
`
`6600 LBJ Freeway, Suite 275
`Dallas, Texas 75240
`
`Telephone: (214) 446-6684
`Fax:
`(2 l4) 446-6692
`
`i‘£1lt&:t3.£.§§l3;ta