DETAILED ACTION
1. This action is responsive to an amendment filed on 12/12/2025.
2. Claims 1-6, 8, 10-18, 20 and 22-24 are pending. Claims 1 and 13 are independent and are currently amended. Amendments to the claims have been entered.
Response to Arguments
3. Applicant's arguments filed 12/12/2025 have been fully considered; however, they are not persuasive based on new ground(s) of rejection. Notice that Claim Objections and Claim Rejections under 35 U.S.C. 112(a) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA ) are removed due to amendments.
Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103
4. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status.
5. 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.
6. Claims 1-6, 8, 10, 13-18 and 20 and 22 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isozaky (US PG Pub. 2014/0026198) in view of Meggison (US PG Pub. 2013/0339937) in view of Padidar (US Patent 9,152,694) and further in view of Halpern (US PG Pub. 2018/0189194).
As regarding claim 1, Isozaky discloses A method of monitoring applications (apps) that are installed a set top box (STB) for illegal or harmful activity by a policy manager, the method comprising:
downloading and copying an app from an external source [para. 46; downloading the application from the delivery server];
installing or uninstalling the app [para. 46-47 and 156; installing the downloaded application];
providing a notification informing the policy manager of the installing or uninstalling of the app [FIG. 19 and para. 156 and FIG. 19; sending a message to inform the completion of the install process]; and
evaluating the app be installed or uninstalled [S135 of FIG. 20 and para. 160].
Isozaky does not explicitly disclose installing the app into an application folder; however, Meggison discloses it [para. 44-45].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Isozaky’s installing to further comprise installing the app into an application folder, as disclosed by Meggison, so as one of various alternative areas in which applications may be stored [Meggison para. 25].
Isozaky and Meggison do not explicitly disclose that the policy manager comprises a private file monitoring/scan module configured to access a policy database to evaluate the app to be installed or uninstalled; however, Padidar discloses it [Padidar col. 8 lines 2-16; determining if an app violates company’s app policy then the app is removed from mobile devices].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Isozaky and Meggison’s system to further comprise the missing limitation, as disclosed by Padidar, in order to prevent unsafe or unproductive apps based on company’s policy [Padidar col. 3 lines 12-29].
Isozaky, Meggison and Padidar do not explicitly disclose the private file monitoring/scan module monitoring a private file area and shared file area of the STB. However, Halpern discloses it [para. 25-26; private partition 126 and public partition 124 on the data storage device 100 which can be embedded within a media set top box host 200 (FIG. 1 and para. 12)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Isozaky, Meggison and Padidar’s system to further comprise the missing limitation, as disclosed by Halpern, in order to protect secured data from being modified [Halpern para. 21 and 25-26].
As regarding claims 2 and 14, Isozaky further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the external source comprises a Google Play Store or a computer [para. 46].
As regarding claims 3 and 15, Isozaky further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein the policy manager comprises a package-monitoring module configured to access a policy database to evaluate the app to be installed or uninstalled [para. 115-117, 133 and 153].
As regarding claims 4 and 16, Isozaky further discloses The method of claim 1, further comprising: determining that the app to be installed or uninstalled constitutes a policy violation [para. 115-117, 133 and 153].
As regarding claims 5 and 17, Isozaky further discloses The method of claim 4, wherein the app is a blacklisted app [para. 86].
As regarding claims 6 and 18, Isozaky further discloses The method of claim 4, further comprising: providing a policy violation report to the policy manager [para. 155].
As regarding claims 8 and 20, Isozaky further discloses The method of claim 1, wherein evaluating the app comprises monitoring file creation/change events and verifying file names with the policy database [para. 54, 61 and 86].
As regarding claims 10 and 22, Isozaky further discloses The method of claim 8, wherein if a file name contains any keyword which matches a blacklisted app, providing a policy violation report to the policy manager [para. 54].
As regarding claim 13, Isozaky discloses A system for determining whether to allow an application (app) for use or restrict the app on a set top box (STB), the system comprising:
one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage devices, and instructions stored on at least one of the one or more storage devices for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories [para. 249 and 264-265], the instructions comprising:
instructions to download and copy an app from an external source [para. 46; downloading the application from the delivery server];
instructions to install or uninstall the app [para. 46-47 and 156; installing the downloaded application];
instructions to provide a notification informing the policy manager of the installing or uninstalling of the app [FIG. 19 and para. 156 and FIG. 19; sending a message to inform the completion of the install process]; and
instructions to evaluate the app be installed or uninstalled [S135 of FIG. 20 and para. 160].
Isozaky does not explicitly disclose instructions to install the app into an application folder; however, Meggison discloses it [para. 44-45].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Isozaky’s installing to further comprise installing the app into an application folder, as disclosed by Meggison, so as one of various alternative areas in which applications may be stored [Meggison para. 25].
Isozaky and Meggison do not explicitly disclose that the policy manager comprises a private file monitoring/scan module configured to access a policy database to evaluate the app to be installed or uninstalled; however, Padidar discloses it [Padidar col. 8 lines 2-16; determining if an app violates company’s app policy then the app is removed from mobile devices].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Isozaky and Meggison’s system to further comprise the missing limitation, as disclosed by Padidar, in order to prevent unsafe or unproductive apps based on company’s policy [Padidar col. 3 lines 12-29].
Isozaky, Meggison and Padidar do not explicitly disclose the private file monitoring/scan module monitoring a private file area and shared file area of the STB. However, Halpern discloses it [para. 25-26; private partition 126 and public partition 124 on the data storage device 100 which can be embedded within a media set top box host 200 (FIG. 1 and para. 12)].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Isozaky, Meggison and Padidar’s system to further comprise the missing limitation, as disclosed by Halpern, in order to protect secured data from being modified [Halpern para. 21 and 25-26].
7. Claims 11, 12, 23 and 24 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Isozaky (US PG Pub. 2014/0026198) in view of Meggison (US PG Pub. 2013/0339937) in view of Padidar (US Patent 9,152,694) and further in view of Bucciarelli (US PG Pub. 2015/0058242).
As regarding claims 11 and 23, Isozaky, Meggison and Padidar do not disclose a piracy detection module configured to read identifiers in the app to detect if an app includes illegal content. However, Bucciarelli discloses it [para. 61].
It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art at the time the effective filing of the invention to modify Isozaky, Meggison and Padidar’s system to further comprise the missing limitation, as disclosed by Bucciarelli, in order to prevent viewing illegal content on mobile device [Bucciarelli para. 61].
As regarding claims 12 and 24, Bucciarelli further discloses The method of claim 11, wherein the piracy detection module is further configured to report parameters related to playback of illegal or pirated content [para. 61].
Conclusion
Accordingly, THIS ACTION IS MADE FINAL. See MPEP § 706.07(a). Applicant is reminded of the extension of time policy as set forth in 37 CFR 1.136(a).
A shortened statutory period for reply to this final action is set to expire THREE MONTHS from the mailing date of this action. In the event a first reply is filed within TWO MONTHS of the mailing date of this final action and the advisory action is not mailed until after the end of the THREE-MONTH shortened statutory period, then the shortened statutory period will expire on the date the advisory action is mailed, and any extension fee pursuant to 37 CFR 1.136(a) will be calculated from the mailing date of the advisory action. In no event, however, will the statutory period for reply expire later than SIX MONTHS from the date of this final action.
Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to THONG P TRUONG whose telephone number is (571)270-7905. The examiner can normally be reached on M-F 8:30AM - 5:30PM.
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, Jeffrey Pwu can be reached on 57127267986798. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300.
Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from the Patent Application Information Retrieval (PAIR) system. Status information for published applications may be obtained from either Private PAIR or Public PAIR. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Private PAIR only. For more information about the PAIR system, see http://pair-direct.uspto.gov. Should you have questions on access to the Private PAIR system, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative or access to the automated information system, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000.
/THONG TRUONG/
Examiner, Art Unit 2433
/JEFFREY C PWU/Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2433