.,
`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 3361
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES PATENT & TRADEMARK OFFICE
`
`•'
`
`In re Application of:
`Jean-Marc Trinon
`Olivier Pignault
`
`Assignee:
`
`BMC Software, Inc.
`
`Serial No.:
`
`10/377,092
`
`Filed: February 28, 2003
`
`For: System and Method for Assessing
`and Indicating the Health of
`Components
`
`§ Confirmation No.:
`§
`§ Group Art Unit:
`§
`§
`§ Examiner:
`§
`§ Examiner phone:
`§
`§
`§ Atty. Dkt. No.:
`§
`§
`
`1888
`
`2857
`
`Hal D. Wachsman
`
`571-272-2225
`
`149-0115US
`
`RESPONSE TO OFFICE ACTION MAILED MARCH 5, 2008
`
`Mail Stop Amendment
`Commissioner for Patents
`P.O. Box 1450
`Alexandria, VA 22313-1450
`
`Dear Sir:
`
`In response to the above-identified Office Action, please amend the application as
`
`follows:
`
`• Amendments to the Abstract begin on page 2 of this Reply.
`
`• Amendments to the Specification begin on page 3 of this Reply.
`
`• Amendments to the Claims are reflected in the listing of claims which begins on page 5
`
`of this Reply.
`
`• Remarks begin on page 11 of this Reply.
`
`• A substitute drawing accompanies, and is part of, this Reply.
`
`• A computer program listing accompanies, and is part of, this Reply, on compact disc.
`
`• A replacement Declaration accompanies, and is part of, this Reply.
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 2 of 18 PageID #: 3362
`SERIAL NO: 10/377,092
`DOCKET NO: 149-0 II SUS
`
`REPLY TO OFFICE ACTION DATED 05 MAR 2008
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`
`,,
`
`AMENDMENT TO THE ABSTRACT
`
`Replace the Abstract with the following rewritten paragraph. This amendment introduces
`
`no new matter.
`
`A system and method for visualization of the components of an entemrise system
`
`saeh systems and the rendering of information about the [["]]health[["]] or status
`
`of the enterori~e system. its components. and/o! its subcomponents. The invention
`
`eemflrises asiag uses a combination of color codes or other indicators and a
`
`combination of algorithms and/or rules-based systems to control the computation
`
`of status/severities to associate to components and setup the color codes and
`
`indicators. The iaYeatiea remedies the disadYantages ef asiag a single eeler code
`
`er iadieater for flFSYidiag teedaaeli:: ea the healtWstat\is er eomflOHeats ia a
`
`eemflleK BateffJrise System.
`
`2 of18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 3 of 18 PageID #: 3363
`REPLY TO OFFICE ACfiON DATED 05 MAR 2008
`SERIAL NO: 10/377,092
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`DOCKETNO: 149-0IISUS
`
`,,
`
`AMENDMENTS TO THE SPECIFICATION
`
`Unless otherwise noted, paragraph numbers in this document reference the application as
`
`published by the Patent Office, Patent Application No. 2004/0024571, filed 28 February 2003,
`
`Serial No. 10/377,092.
`
`Replace paragraph [0001] with the following rewritten paragraph. This amendment
`
`introduces no new matter, and is not made for any reason related to the claimed subject matter's
`
`patentability.
`
`[0001] This application claims beaefit te priority to Provisional Application 8ef::.
`
`No. 60/360,742 filed on Mar. 1, 2002, which is incomorated herein by reference.
`
`Add the following new paragraph after paragraph [0001]. This amendment introduces no
`
`new matter, and is not made for any reason related to the claimed subiect matter's patentability.
`
`This application incorporates by reference the program code provided on compact
`
`disc, in duplicate, contained in file "10377092_ComputerListing," created on
`
`June 05, 2008, and consisting of 10.3 KB.
`
`Replace paragraph [0006] with the following rewritten paragraph. This amendment
`
`introduces no new matter, and is not made for any reason related to. the claimed subject matter's
`
`patentability.
`
`[0006] An expandable tree (like in the left window of the 'Viaemvs® E~q9lerer
`
`WINDOWS® EXPLORER); and
`
`Replace paragraph [0016] with the following rewritten paragraph. This amendment
`
`introduces no new matter, and is not made for any reason related to the claimed subject matter's
`
`patentability.
`
`3 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 4 of 18 PageID #: 3364
`REPLY TO OFFICE ACTION DATED 05 MAR 2008
`SERIAL NO: I 0/377,092
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`DOCKETNO: 149-0115US
`
`[0016] Some variations have been introduced, te taat but they still use one single
`
`color code. For example, in HP™ OpeaView OPENVIEW, the color of a
`
`component can be the result of a computation that is looking at the percentage of
`
`components at a given severity level to decide about the severity to associate to
`
`the component that they are part of or that depends on them. Additionally, BMC
`
`Software has created PATROL® Explorer which uses '}liaae\1ls® BJEplerer like
`
`WINDOWS® EXPLORER-like displays to portray the enterprise hierarchically
`
`and topical maps to display the enterprise geographically or logically. Moreover,
`
`Tiveli™ B-usiaess Systems Ma:aager TIVOLI™ BUSINESS SYSTEMS
`
`MANAGER uses hyperbolic technology to provide information such as how an
`
`outage affects enterprise resources and relationships.
`
`Replace paragraph 0046 with the following rewritten paragraph. This amendment
`
`introduces no new matter, and is not made for any reason involved with patentability.
`
`[0046] The fellevliag eede program code incorporated by reference provides but
`
`one example of how to accomplish the intent of this invention. Those skilled in
`
`the art ·will recognize that significant deviation from this algorithm is still well
`
`within the scope of the invention. Though certainly not restrictive of the
`
`embodiments that are considered to be within the scope of the invention, the
`
`following code offers one embodiment and those skilled in the art will realize that
`
`significant variation from this embodiment is meant to be within the scope of this
`
`invention.
`
`Remove the program code listing on pages 10-22 of the original specification. This
`
`program code listing has been moved to a program code listing appendix.
`
`4 of18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 5 of 18 PageID #: 3365
`REPLY TO OFFIC~ ACTION DATED 05 MAR 2008
`SERIAL NO: I 0/3 77,092
`DOCKET NO: 149-0 II SUS
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`
`AMENDMENTS TO THE CLAIMS
`
`Assignee acknowledges that duplicate claims 8 were originally filed. Assignee further
`
`notes that the Examiner has renumbered the originally filed claims 9-21. Office Action at page 4,
`
`~ 7. Assignee understands this act to be an Examiner's Amendment and accepts same.
`
`Accordingly, the claims presented here assume such renumbering.
`
`The below listing of claims will replace all prior versions, and listings, of claims in the
`
`application.
`
`1.
`
`(currently amended) A method for indicating the health status of an IT component and at
`
`least one IT subcomponent wherein each IT subcomponent is dependent on the IT
`
`component, the method ~ comprising the steps of:
`
`(a)
`
`(b)
`
`(c)
`
`computing a component health status of the IT component;
`
`computing a subcomponent health status for each IT subcomponent;
`
`rendering health status of the IT component by showing a first indicator for the IT
`
`component and a second indicator for the IT subcomponents.
`
`2.
`
`(currently amended) The method of claim 1 wherein the first indicator is a first color and
`
`the second indicator is a second color.
`
`3.
`
`(currently amended) The method of claim 2 wherein the first and second colors are
`
`different.
`
`4.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein Step (a) further comprises using rules-based
`
`systems to control the computation of the health status.
`
`5.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein Step (b) further comprises using rules-based
`
`systems to control the computation of the health status.
`
`5 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 6 of 18 PageID #: 3366
`REPLY TO OFFICE ACfiON DATED 05 MAR 2008
`SERIAL NO: 10/377,092
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`DOCKET NO: 149-0 II SUS
`
`6.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein Step (a) further comprises using an algorithm
`
`to control the computation of the health status.
`
`7.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein Step (b) further comprises using an algorithm
`
`to control the computation of the health status.
`
`8.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein the computing of Step (a) further comprises
`receiving a plurality of events and/or alerts from the IT component.
`
`9.
`
`(cancelled)
`
`10.
`
`(original) The method of claim 1 wherein the computing of Step (b) further comprises
`
`receiving a plurality of events and/or alerts from each IT subcomponent.
`
`11.
`
`(currently amended) A method of assessing a status of an IT system comprising a
`
`plurality of IT components having a plurality of IT subcomponents wherein the method uses tbe
`
`method of iHdieatiag the health stams of the IT ee!HJ)oHeats aad subeo!HJ)OHeHts of elaim 1 fer
`
`eaeb IT eom~oaeat. comprises the steps of:
`
`(a)
`
`using the method of indicating the health status of the IT components of claim 1
`
`for each IT component:
`
`CQl
`
`using the method of indicating the health status of the IT subcomponents of claim
`
`1 for each IT subcomponent;
`
`(c)
`
`computing a health status of the IT system.
`
`12.
`
`(original) The method of claim 11 which further comprises the step of using a graphical
`
`user interface to view the status of the IT system.
`
`6 of18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 7 of 18 PageID #: 3367
`
`REPLY TO OFFICE ACTION DATED 05 MAR 2008
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`
`SERIAL NO: 10/377,092
`DOCKETNO: 149-0115US
`
`13.
`
`(currently amended) A system for indicating the health status of an IT component and at
`
`least one IT subcomponent comprising:
`
`(a)
`
`an IT component processor C!if>aele ef ceftlfJtitiag adapted to compute a
`
`component health· status of the IT component;
`
`(b)
`
`an IT subcomponent processor elif)aele ef eeffifJl:itiag adapted to compute a
`
`subcomponent health status for each IT subcomponent;
`
`(c)
`
`a renderer C!if>aele ef eisfllayiag adapted to display the health status of the IT
`
`component by showing a first indicator for the IT component and a second
`
`indicator for the IT subcomponents.
`
`14.
`
`(original) The system of claim 13 wherein the first indicator and the second indicator are
`
`colors.
`
`15.
`
`(currently amended) The system of claim 13 wherein the IT compone~t pro.cessor further
`
`comprises a rules-based system to control the computation of the health status of the IT
`
`component.
`
`16.
`
`(currently amended) The system of claim 13 wherein the IT subcomponent processor
`
`further comprises a rules-based system to control the computation of the health status of each IT
`
`subcomponent.
`
`17.
`
`(original) The system of claim 13 wherein the IT component processor and the IT
`
`subcomponent processor are the same processor.
`
`7 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 8 of 18 PageID #: 3368
`REPLY .TO OFFICE ACfiON DATED 05 MAR 2008
`SERIAL NO: 10/377,092
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`DOCKETNO: 149-0115US
`
`18.
`
`(currently amended) A system of assessing a plurality of IT components wherein each IT
`
`component has a plurality of IT subcomponents, the system which comprises:
`
`(a)
`
`the system for indicating the health status of an IT component and at least one IT
`
`subcomponent of claim 12; and .
`
`(b)
`
`a graphical user interface eapable ef displayiag adapted to display the health
`
`status of each IT component and each IT subcomponent.
`
`19.
`
`(currently amended) The system of claim 18 wherein each IT component processor and
`
`each IT subcomponent processor comprise[[ s ]] a rules-based system to control the computation
`
`of the health status of the IT component and IT subcomponent.
`
`20.
`
`(currently amended) The system of claim 18 wherein each IT component processor and
`
`each IT subcomponent processor comprise[[s]] an algorithm to control the computation of the
`
`health status of the IT component and IT subcomponent.
`
`21.
`
`(original) The system of claim 18 wherein each IT component processor and each IT
`
`subcomponent processor is the same processor.
`
`22.
`
`(new) A method for indicating network element status, comprising:
`
`determining a first status of a first network element;
`
`determining an aggregate status of a second one or more network elements, wherein the
`
`second one or more network elements are operatively coupled to the first network element;
`
`displaying the status of the first network element using a first indicator; and
`
`displaying the aggregate status of the second one or more network elements using a
`
`second indicator,
`
`wherein the first and second indicators are in spatial contact.
`
`8 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 9 of 18 PageID #: 3369
`REPLY TO OFFICE ACTION DATED OS MAR 2008
`SERIAL NO: I 0/377,092
`FILED ON OS JUN 2008
`DOCKETNO: 149-0IISUS
`
`23.
`
`(new) The method of claim 22, further comprising:
`
`determining a second aggregate status of a third one or more network elements, wherein
`
`the third one or more network elements are operatively coupled to the first network element; and
`
`displaying the status of the second aggregate status of the third one or more network
`
`elements 1JSing a third indicator, wherein the third indicator is in spatial contact with the first or
`
`second indicator.
`
`24.
`
`(new) The method of claim 22, wherein the act of determining the first status comprises
`
`using a rules-based ~ystem.
`
`25.
`
`(new) The method of claim 22, wherein the act of determining the aggregate status
`
`comprises using a rules-based system.
`
`26.
`
`(new) The method of claim 22, wherein the act of determining the first status comprises
`
`using an algorithm.
`
`27.
`
`(new) The method of claim 22, wherein the act of determining the aggregate status
`
`comprises using a algorithm.
`
`28.
`
`(new) The method of claim 22, wherein the first indicator comprises a first color and the
`
`second indicator comprises a second, different, color.
`
`29.
`
`(new) The method of claim 22, wherein the first indicator comprises a first symbol and
`
`the second indicator comprises a second, different, symbol.
`
`30.
`
`(new) The method of claim 22, wherein the act of displaying the first indicator comprises
`
`displaying said first indicator in front of the second indicator.
`
`31.
`
`(new) The method of claim 22, wherein the act of displaying the first indicator comprises
`
`displaying said first indicator so that it contacts at least one edge of the second indicator.
`
`9 of18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 10 of 18 PageID #: 3370
`
`REPLY TO OFFicE ACTION DATED 05 MAR 2008
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`
`SERIAL NO: 10/377,092
`DOCKETNO: 149-0115US
`
`32.
`
`(new) A program storage devise having instructions stored thereon for causing a
`
`processor to perform acts in accordance with claim 22.
`
`10 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 11 of 18 PageID #: 3371
`REPLY TO OFFICt:: ACfiON DATED 05 MAR 2008
`SERIAL NO: I 0/377,092
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`DOCKET NO: 149-0 115US
`
`REMARKS
`
`This paper is intended to be a complete response to the above-identified Office Action. It
`
`is believed no additional fees are due. If fees are required, however, the Commissioner is
`
`authorized to deduct the necessary charges from Deposit Account 501922, referencing attorney
`
`docket 149-0115US.
`
`Claims 1-3, 11, 13, 15, 16 and 18-20 have been amended. Claim 9 has been cancelled
`
`without prejudice. Claims 22 through 32 have been added. Accordingly, thirty-one (31) claims
`
`are currently pending in the· instant patent application (claims 1-8 and 10-32). These claim
`
`numbers account for the Examiner's renumbering of claims. Office Action at page 4, ~ 7.
`
`The following remarks primarily address the independent claims. Because dependent
`
`claims necessarily include the limitations of the independent claims from which they depend,
`
`each pending claim is allowable for at least one or more reasons set forth herein.
`
`Unless otherwise noted, . paragraph numbers in this document reference the published
`
`version of this application, Patent Application No. 2004/0024571.
`
`Drawings
`
`A replacement drawing sheet accompanies this Reply in accordance with 37 C.P.R.
`
`1.121. See Office Action at page 2, ~ 1. Specifically:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`A legend has been added to associate black and white hatch patterns with the colors
`
`stipulated in the text at paragraphs [0027]-[0038].
`
`Background indicators have been added to the first and last components in the right-most
`
`column. These components are named: co_w@is1@web_cluster@cbrow@ca_os@
`
`FO@biz and sysdd@is 1 @web_ cluster@cbrow@ca _ os@FO@biz.
`
`In
`
`the original
`
`Figure 1, these components do not appear to have background indicators. Paragraph
`
`[0037], however, clearly states that each of these components should "contain both an
`
`indicator in the foreground and an indicator in the background."
`
`These amendments are supported by the Specification as filed at, at least, paragraphs
`
`[0027]-[0038]. No new matter has been introduced, nor has any information necessary for
`
`Assignee to meet its obligation under 35 U.S.C. 112 been deleted.
`
`11 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 12 of 18 PageID #: 3372
`REPLY TO OFFICi:: ACTION DATED 05 MAR 2008
`SERIAL NO: 10/377,092
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`DOCKETNO: 149-0IISUS
`
`Declaration
`
`A substitute Inventor Declaration is included as part of this Reply to address the
`
`Examiners objection to same. Office Action at page 3, ~ 2.
`
`Abstract
`
`The Abstract has been amended in accordance with the Examiner's comments. Office
`
`Action at page 3, ~ 3. This amendment does not introduce new matter.
`
`Specification
`
`The Examiner has objected to the phrase " ... (silly isn't it)" at page 20, line 7 of the
`
`Specification as published. Office Action at page 3, ~ 4. The program code provided is what was
`
`provided by the inventors. We understand that a hash mark ("#") in PERL denotes a comment
`
`line. Accordingly, the phrase "silly isn't it" is a comment.
`
`The Examiner has objected to the use of certain trademarks in the body of the
`
`Specification. Office Action at page 3, ~ 5. The Specification has been amended to address this
`
`objection. No new matter was introduced by these amendments.
`
`The Examiner has objected to the program code listing as filed under 37 C.P.R. 1.96 and
`
`M.P.E.P. 608.05(a). Office Action at page 4, ~ 6. The originally filed program listing has been
`
`removed from the written Specification and placed in a Program Code Appendix in accordance
`
`with 3 7 C.P.R. 1.52( e). The specification has been amended to indicate this fact. A copy of the
`
`Program Code Appendix on Compact Disk is included as part of this Reply.
`
`Assignee acknowledges that the Examiner has renumbered the originally filed claims so
`
`that the (second) duplicate claim 8 is now 9 - with all subsequent claim numbers increased
`
`accordingly. Office Action at page 4, ~ 7. Assignee has used the Examiner's new numbering in
`
`the copy of the claims attached here.
`
`The Examiner objects to the Specification under 37 C.P.R. 1.75(d)(l) and M.P.E.P.
`
`608.01(o). Specifically, the Examiner alleges:
`
`The specification does not provide proper antecedent basis
`for ·1r subcomponent" and "IT subcomponent processor".
`Office Action at page 4, ~ 8.
`
`12 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 13 of 18 PageID #: 3373
`REPLY TO OFFICE ACTION DATED 05 MAR 2008
`SERIAL NO: 10/377,092
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`DOCKET NO: 149-0 II SUS
`
`The prefix "sub" is used in its conventional manner. That is: "subcomponent" used in it's
`
`conventional manner. That is:
`
`sub- 1 : under : beneath : below <subsoil> <subcutaneous> <subpier> <subdominant>
`
`<subhymenial> 2 a : subordinate : secondary : next lower than or inferior to <subcenter>
`
`<subfreshman> <subgenus> b : subordinate portion of : subdivision of: derived from
`
`<subcommittee> <subculture> <subdistrict> <sub science>.
`
`Webster's Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary, Merriam-Webster, Inc., 1984.
`
`The Examiner has questioned the two large spaces at page 6, line 20 of the Specification
`
`as filed. Office Action at page 4, ~ 9. It appears these spaces are a result of the right and left
`
`justification, along with the length of the words.
`
`The Examiner has objected to the Specification as filed at page 8, line 25 for use of the
`
`word "PERL" as allegedly being undefined. Office Action at page 4, ~ 10. PERL is a well(cid:173)
`
`known high-level programming language. As such, anyone of ordinary skill in the art would
`
`understand the reference as used. See, for example, the web site established by The Perl
`
`Foundation at http://www.perl.org/ (last visited 03 June 2008).
`
`Originally Filed Claims
`
`Assignee acknowledges that duplicate claims 8 were originally filed. Assignee further
`
`notes that the Examiner has renumbered the originally filed claims 9-21. Office Action at page 4,
`
`~ 7. Assignee understands this act to be an Examiner's Amendment and accepts same.
`
`Accordingly, the claims presented here assume such renumbering.
`
`New Claims
`
`Claims 22-32 have been added. Support for independent claim 22 may be found at least
`
`at paragraphs [00 18], [0021 ], [0027] and [0028]. Support for independent claim 32 may be found
`
`at least at paragraph [0040] and the computer program listing (as originally filed and now
`
`incorporated in a Program Code Appendix).
`
`13 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 14 of 18 PageID #: 3374
`REPLY TO OFFic'E ACTION DATED 05 MAR 2008
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`
`SERIAL NO: 10/377,092
`DOCKETNO: 149-0115US
`
`Section 112 Rejections
`
`The Examiner has rejected claims 1-21 under 35 U.S.C. 112 as allegedly failing to
`
`particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the applicant regards as the
`
`invention. Office Action at pages 5-6,~~ 11, 12. Specifically, the Examiner alleges:
`
`1.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`In independent claims 1, 11, 13 and 18, "IT" has not
`
`been defined.
`
`The label "IT" is defined in the Field of Invention Section. Furthermore, one of ordinary
`
`skill in the art would know this definition. In addition, in the context of the disclosure,
`
`any person of ordinary skill in the art would understand "IT" to refer to ·Information
`
`Technology.
`
`Claim 1, lines 2-3, cite "the method which comprising the steps of:"
`
`however was this intended to be •the method comprising the steps of:" ?
`
`Claim 1 has been amended to remove the word "which."
`
`Cfafm 1, step
`
`a. cftes *computing a component health status of the IT component" which does not
`
`particularly point out how exactly the component health status is being computed. This
`
`sa me type of problem also occurs fn claims 11, 13 and 18. Claim 1 • step b, cites
`
`"'computing a subcomponent health status for each IT subcomponent"' which does not
`
`particularly point out how exactly the subcomponent health status ls being computed.
`
`This same type of problem also occurs in claims 11, 13 and 18.
`
`The verb "computing" is clarified at least at paragraph [00 18] to include "a combination
`
`of algorithms and/or rules-based systems to control the computation of status/severities."
`
`This recitation is not intended to limit the claimed invention to any particular
`
`computational formula. (See last sentence of paragraph [0026].)
`
`14 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 15 of 18 PageID #: 3375
`REPLY T.Q OFFICE ACfiON DATED 05 MAR 2008
`SERIAL NO: I 0/3 77,092
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`DOCKET NO: 149-0115US
`
`4.
`
`algorithm to control the computation of the health status" in which there is ambiguity
`
`with respect to what algorithm(s) are being referred to here. This same type of problem
`
`Claims 6 and 7 cite "an
`
`also occurs in claim 20.
`
`As used in claims 6, 7 and 20, use the term "algorithm" is not intended to limit the
`
`claimed invention to any particular algorithm of determining the status of an IT
`
`component or subcomponent as clearly explained at paragraphs [0024]-[0026].
`
`5.
`
`claims depending from claim 8 and 9 it appears that cancellation of one these duplicate
`
`Claim 9 is a duplicate of claim 8 and as there are no other
`
`claims is needed.
`
`Second claim 8 (renumbered by the Examiner to claim 9) has been cancelled.
`
`Claim 11 cites • .... the method uses the method of indicating the
`
`6.
`
`health status of the IT components and subcomponents of Claim 1 for each IT
`
`component" however step(s) are missing here to show how the application of the
`
`method of claim 1 results in the assessing of the status of the IT system.
`
`Claim 11 has been amended to clarify the claimed subject matter. It is noted, however,
`
`that the act of "computing a health status" is not intended to limit the claimed invention
`
`to any particular computational formula. See discussion above regarding item 3.
`
`Claim 13, elements (a), (b) and (c), cite
`"capable or which implies that the invention may or may not do what is being cited. This
`
`7.
`
`same type of problem also occurs in claim 18, element (b).
`
`Claims 13 and 18 have been amended.
`
`8.
`
`component• however the antecedent basis is "IT componenr. This same type of
`
`Claim 15, line 2, cites "the
`
`problem also occurs in claim 16, line 2.
`
`Claims 15 and 16 have been amended.
`
`15 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 16 of 18 PageID #: 3376
`SERJAL NO: I 0/377,092
`REPLY 'J'O OFFICE ACTION DATED 05 MAR 2008
`DOCKET NO: 149-01 !SUS
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`
`9.
`
`however which of the previously cited types of health status is being referred to here ?
`
`Claim 19, lines 2-3, cite "the health status"
`
`This same type of problem also occurs in claim 20, line 2.
`
`Claims 19 and 20 have been amended.
`
`Section 102 Rejections
`
`The Examiner has rejected claims 1-21 as allegedly being anticipated under 35 U.S.C.
`
`1 02( e) by U.S. Published Patent Application 2003/0005486 ("Ridalfo"). Specifically, the
`
`Examiner asserts that:
`
`As per claim 1, Ridolfo et al. (Abstract, paragraphs 0088, 0089) disclose
`
`~computing a component health status of the IT component". Ridolfo et al. (paragraphs
`
`0089, 0090) disclose "computing a subcomponent health status for each IT
`
`subcomponenr•. Ridolfo et al. (paragraphs 0104-0107, 0109) disclose "rendering health
`
`status of the IT component by showing a first indicator for the IT component and a
`
`second indicator for the IT subcomponents".
`
`As per claim 11, the features of this claim have already been addressed in
`
`the rejection of claim 1 above.
`
`As per claim 13, Ridolfo et al. (Abstract, paragraphs 0088, 0089) disclose
`
`"an IT component processor capable of computing a component health status of the IT
`
`componenr. Ridolfo et al. (Abstract, paragraphs 0089, 0090) disclose "an IT
`
`subcomponent processor ... status for each IT subcomponent". Ridolfo et al. (Abstract,
`
`paragraphs 0104-0107, 01 09) disclose •a renderer capable of displaying the health
`
`status of the IT component. .. and a second indicator for the IT subcomponents•.
`
`As per claim 18, element (a) has already been addressed in the rejection
`
`of claim 13 above. With respect to element (b), Ridolfo et al. (see at least the Abstract
`
`and figures 8 and 10) disclose "a graphical user interface capable of displaying the
`
`health status of each IT component and each IT subcomponent".
`
`16 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 17 of 18 PageID #: 3377
`REPLY TO OFFICE ACTION DATED 05 MAR 2008
`SERIAL NO: 10/377,092
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`DOCKET NO: 149-0 115US
`
`Office Action at page 7-8, ~ 14.
`
`U.S. Published Patent Application 2003/0005~86 to Ridalfo
`
`Ridalfo describes a "health monitoring system" for a "complex plant." Ridalfo at [0008].
`
`The health information is presented in a "three-tier hierarchy of displays" that "supports a logical
`
`drill down to the health status of sub-components" on the next tier. Ridalfo at Abstract. Each
`
`tier is displayed on a separate display page from the other tiers. Ridalfo at [0009] through [0011].
`
`The "health status [of] each component is designated on the display via color-coding of its
`
`corresponding box." Ridalfo .at [0104]. The status of each component is determined according
`
`to the status of its subcomponents. Ridalfo at [0106] through [0109], Figures 4 and 5.
`
`Discussion
`
`With respect to independent claims 1 and 11, the Examiner cites to paragraphs (0104](cid:173)
`
`[0107] and [0109] of Ridalfo as disclosing of the act of "rendering health status of the IT
`
`component by showing a first indicator for the IT component and a second indicator for the IT
`
`subcomponents." In Ridalfo, a user must drill down to the subcomponent level by selecting and
`
`interrogating each component. Ridalfo at [0108]. Ridalfo discloses that one way to do such an
`
`interrogation would be to maneuver the mouse to place the cursor on the desired component, and
`
`to click the mouse button which would result in the user being navigated from the current display
`
`to a second display. Ridalfo at [01 08]. Thus, in a system in accordance with Ridalfo, to ascertain
`
`the health of the component independent of its subcomponents, the user must navigate to a
`
`second screen, locate the appropriate data, and then navigate back to the previous screen to begin
`
`the same process again for the next component. In contrast to Ridalfo, the invention of claims 1
`
`and 11 provide the health status of an IT component and a subcomponent via a single act of
`
`rendering. Ridalfo does not describe, teach or fairly suggest this behavior. In fact, Ridalfo
`
`explicitly teaches that the user must navigate through plural windows to get such information.
`
`With respect to independent claims 13 and 18, they are allowable for at least the same
`
`reason as is independent claim 1 in so far as the incorporate the acts of independent claim 1.
`
`For at least these reasons, Ridalfo fails to teach each and every element recited in
`
`independent claims 1, 11, 13 and 18. As a result, the Examiner has failed to present a legitimate
`
`prima facie anticipatory rejection under 35 U.S.C. 102. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested
`
`17 of 18
`
`

`
`Case 2:14-cv-00903-JRG Document 99-11 Filed 05/29/15 Page 18 of 18 PageID #: 3378
`REPLY TO OFFICE ACTION DATED 05 MAR 2008
`SERIAL NO: I 0/377,092
`FILED ON 05 JUN 2008
`DOCKETNO: 149-0115US
`
`that the Examiner withdraw these rejections. Each of rejected claims 2-10, 12, 14-17 and 19-21
`
`depend from one of independent claims 1, 11, 13 and 18. Since each independent claim is
`
`patentable over Ridalfo as discussed above, each of the identified dependent claims are also
`
`allowable. Accordingly, it is respectfully requested that the Examiner withdraw this rejection.
`
`CONCLUSIONS
`
`In view of the foregoing amendments and remarks, it is submitted that each of the
`
`pending claims is allowable for at least the reasons set forth herein. Reconsideration and
`
`withdrawal of all rejections and a Notice of Allowance for all pending claims is therefore
`
`requested.
`
`If, after considering this reply, the Examiner believes that a telephone conference would
`
`be beneficial towards advancing this case to allowance, the Examiner is strongly encouraged to
`
`contact the undersigned attorney at the number listed.
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Billy C. Allen III, R~-Nn:-4fl.l
`Attorney for Applicant
`
`June 5, 2008
`
`Date
`
`WONG, CABELLO, LUTSCH,
`RUTHERFORD & BRUCCULERI, LLP
`20333 State Highway 249, Suite 600
`Houston, Texas 77070
`wcpatent@counselip.com
`832/446-2400
`832/446-2424 (facsimile)
`
`Express Mail Tracking No.: ___ ____ ..:;E:~.::0~02::.::5:...:1:.::9.::.2~0.:.;10~U~S-------------
`
`CERTIFICATE OF EXPRESS MAIL
`
`REBECCA R. GINN
`
`\\
`
`1 J
`
`\
`
`18 of 18