US 11632413

Here's a concise summary of US patent 11632413 based on the provided text and a search for its claims:

US Patent 11632413

• Title: Methods and systems for streaming media content
• Current Assignee: Adeia Guides Inc
• Original Assignee: Rovi Guides Inc
• Inventor: Tao Chen
• Filing Date: 2022-07-18
• Issue Date: 2023-04-18 (Publication date for B1 patents is typically the issue date)
• Abstract: Systems and methods for streaming media content are described. The invention involves receiving a first portion of media content at a user device, where its quality is based on available bandwidth. A second portion is then received at an altered (decreased or increased) bandwidth, with its quality also based on this new bandwidth. The system determines the quality of both portions. If the quality of the second portion (received at decreased bandwidth) is below a quality threshold, the first portion's quality is reduced before being sent to a playback buffer. Conversely, if the quality of the second portion (received at increased bandwidth) is above a quality threshold, the second portion's quality is reduced before buffering.

Plain-Language Overview of Independent Claims:

• Independent Claim 1 (Method Claim): This claim describes a method for streaming media content that aims to smooth transitions in playback quality due to bandwidth changes. It involves:

  1. Receiving a first part of a media item at a user device, with its quality determined by the current available bandwidth.
  2. Receiving a second part of the media item at a new, changed (either lower or higher) bandwidth, with its quality determined by that new bandwidth.
  3. Figuring out the quality level of both the first and second parts.
  4. If the second part's quality (when bandwidth decreased) is below a set quality limit, the system reduces the quality of the first part before it goes into the playback buffer.
  5. Alternatively, if the second part's quality (when bandwidth increased) is above a set quality limit, the system reduces the quality of the second part before it goes into the playback buffer.

• Independent Claim 13 (System Claim): This claim describes a system (specifically, a user device) designed to perform the method outlined in Claim 1. The system includes:

  1. Control circuitry configured to receive the first and second portions of media content, with their qualities determined by the available bandwidth, as described in Claim 1.
  2. The control circuitry is also configured to determine the qualities of both portions.
  3. The control circuitry is further configured to reduce the quality of the first portion (if the second portion's quality dropped below a threshold) or reduce the quality of the second portion (if its quality increased above a threshold), before sending them to a playback buffer.

• Independent Claim 14 (Method Claim - related to buffering and reduction): This claim describes a method for managing media content in a buffer. It involves:

  1. Buffering a media content item with an initial target quality based on the available bandwidth.
  2. Recognizing that the quality of the buffered content changes due to an increase or decrease in bandwidth.
  3. In response to this detected quality change, reducing the quality of at least a part of the buffered media content item.

• Independent Claim 15 (Method Claim - specific buffering scenario): This claim describes a method focusing on buffering two distinct portions of a media item and applying quality reduction. It involves:

  1. Buffering a first portion of a media item at an initial available bandwidth, where its quality depends on that bandwidth.
  2. Buffering a second portion of the media item at a changed (decreased or increased) bandwidth, where its quality depends on that changed bandwidth.
  3. If the first portion's quality is higher than the second portion's quality, the quality of the first buffered portion is reduced before playback.
  4. If the first portion's quality is lower than the second portion's quality, the quality of the second buffered portion is reduced before playback.

CAFC 2026 Dockets:
As of April 26, 2026, a search for US patent 11632413 in the CAFC 2026 dockets did not yield any results. This indicates there is no active litigation involving this patent in the Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit in 2026 as of this date.

As of April 26, 2026, I have not found any known litigation involving US patent 11632413 in the search results from Unified Patents, CAFC, or PACER. The search results primarily discuss general information about these platforms or provide examples of litigation involving other patent numbers or legal topics. Therefore, based on the available information, no litigation for US11632413 is known.

Proceedings overview

There are no AIA trial proceedings on file for US patent 11632413. This indicates that the patent has not been challenged through inter partes review (IPR), post-grant review (PGR), or covered business method (CBM) review at the Patent Trial and Appeal Board (PTAB) as of May 29, 2026. This means all claims of the patent are currently untested by PTAB proceedings, leaving them open to challenge.

Strategic summary

All claims (claims 1-15) of US patent 11632413 remain untested by AIA trial proceedings at the PTAB. This means there is no estoppel landscape established through prior PTAB decisions, and all prior art grounds (e.g., under § 102 or § 103) are theoretically available for a new petitioner to assert in a future IPR or PGR, assuming statutory timing requirements are met. The absence of PTAB challenges for a patent issued in April 2023 suggests either that the patent has not yet been widely asserted, or that potential challengers have not identified strong grounds for invalidation via PTAB proceedings.

Recommended next steps

Since there is no PTAB activity on file for US11632413, a defendant facing assertion of this patent would start with a blank slate regarding PTAB challenges.

• Evaluate prior art: Conduct a thorough prior art search to identify potential grounds for invalidation, focusing on novelty (§ 102) and obviousness (§ 103), which are the permissible grounds for IPRs. Given the patent's focus on adaptive bitrate streaming and smoothing quality transitions, prior art in multimedia streaming, network protocols, and video processing would be particularly relevant.
• Consider filing an IPR petition: If strong prior art is found, filing an IPR petition could be a viable defensive strategy. The statutory deadline for filing an IPR is one year from the date of service of a complaint alleging infringement of the patent (35 U.S.C. § 315(b)).
• Monitor for future filings: Continuously monitor PTAB dockets for any newly filed petitions against US11632413, as this landscape can change rapidly once a patent begins to be asserted.
• Review claim scope: Carefully analyze the independent claims (1, 13, 14, 15) and their dependent claims to understand the full scope of protection and to identify any potential weaknesses that could be exploited in an IPR.

Inventors

• Tao Chen (Employer at time of filing: Rovi Guides Inc)

No unusual patterns, such as all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, are immediately apparent from the provided information.

Original assignee

The entity named as the original assignee on the issued patent is Rovi Guides Inc.

Rovi Guides Inc (and its successor, Adeia Guides Inc) is primarily involved in intellectual property licensing and providing media guidance technology. While they may have some product-related businesses (e.g., through their TiVo offerings), a significant portion of their business model revolves around licensing their extensive patent portfolio, including technology related to streaming media and content delivery. Rovi Guides Inc underwent a corporate name change to Adeia Guides Inc, as detailed below. Therefore, the original assignee is operating under a new name.

Assignment timeline

Due to the inability to perform a live USPTO Patent Assignment Search, specific Reel/Frame numbers and Correspondent information cannot be retrieved directly from the primary source as requested. The following timeline is reconstructed from the "Legal events" section of the provided Google Patents full text for US11632413.

• 2022-07-18 (executed) / recorded 2022-07-19

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: CHEN, TAO (Inventor)
  • Assignee: ROVI GUIDES, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided data
  • Context: Initial assignment of patent rights from inventor to company.

• 2023-05-01 (executed) / recorded 2023-05-03

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: ADEIA GUIDES INC., ADEIA IMAGING LLC, ADEIA MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC, ADEIA MEDIA SOLUTIONS INC., ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES INC., ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR BONDING TECHNOLOGIES INC., ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR INC., ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR SOLUTIONS LLC, ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES LLC, ADEIA SOLUTIONS LLC
  • Assignee: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided data
  • Context: Pledging of intellectual property as collateral for a loan, common for operating companies.

• 2024-09-30 (executed) / recorded 2024-10-04

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: ROVI GUIDES, INC.
  • Assignee: ADEIA GUIDES INC.
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided data
  • Context: Formal corporate name change of the owning entity.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11632413
    2022 : Filed by Rovi Guides Inc
         : Assigned from inventor
    2023 : Issued
         : Security agreement to BofA
    2024 : Rovi name change to Adeia
    2026 : Active

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. While Adeia Guides Inc (formerly Rovi Guides Inc) is heavily involved in patent licensing, it is also associated with active product lines (e.g., TiVo, DTS audio, Xperi automotive solutions) under its broader corporate structure. It operates as an IP monetization entity rather than a pure shell LLC with no other business. The security interest taken by Bank of America also suggests a broader corporate entity.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. The current assignee, Adeia Guides Inc (and its predecessor Rovi Guides Inc), is widely recognized in the intellectual property industry for its extensive patent licensing and assertion activities, often being identified by organizations tracking high-frequency plaintiffs.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Due to the inability to access live USPTO Assignment Center search results, the names of the correspondents involved in recording these transactions are not available.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The ownership chain shows an initial assignment from the inventor, followed by a corporate name change, and a security interest, but no rapid successive transfers between distinct LLCs.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. As stated in the litigation summary, no litigation involving US11632413 has been found as of April 26, 2026.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication that Rovi Guides Inc or Adeia Guides Inc has filed for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — Unclear. While Adeia engages in aggressive patent licensing, it typically asserts patents directly or through its own subsidiaries, rather than acting as a separate NPE entity hired by another operating company for assertion.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently held by Adeia Guides Inc, which is not a defensive aggregator.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

The high confidence verdict is driven primarily by the presence of a known patent asserter, Adeia Guides Inc (formerly Rovi Guides Inc), as the current owner of the patent. This entity has a well-established business model centered on intellectual property licensing and enforcement, fitting the definition of an NPE, even if it has some product divisions. The initial assignment from the inventor to Rovi Guides Inc (event recorded on 2022-07-19) and the subsequent name change to Adeia Guides Inc (event recorded on 2024-10-04) confirm this lineage.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search for patent number US11632413).## Inventors

• Tao Chen (Employer at time of filing: Rovi Guides Inc)

No unusual patterns, such as all inventors departing the original assignee within 12 months of filing, are immediately apparent from the provided information.

Original assignee

The entity named as the original assignee on the issued patent is Rovi Guides Inc.

Rovi Guides Inc (and its successor, Adeia Guides Inc) is a prominent company known for its intellectual property licensing and media guidance technology. Its business model heavily involves the monetization of a large patent portfolio through licensing agreements with major players in the entertainment and semiconductor industries. While Adeia maintains some product-related operations through its broader corporate structure (e.g., DTS audio and Xperi automotive solutions), a substantial portion of its revenue is generated from IP licensing. Rovi Guides Inc formally changed its corporate name to Adeia Guides Inc, as detailed below. Therefore, the original assignee is operating under a new name and maintains an active business in IP licensing and technology.

Assignment timeline

Due to the inability to perform a live USPTO Patent Assignment Search, specific Reel/Frame numbers and Correspondent information cannot be retrieved directly from the primary source as requested. The following timeline is reconstructed from the "Legal events" section of the provided Google Patents full text for US11632413.

• 2022-07-18 (executed) / recorded 2022-07-19

  • Conveyance: Assignment
  • Assignor: CHEN, TAO (Inventor)
  • Assignee: ROVI GUIDES, INC.
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided data
  • Context: Initial assignment of patent rights from inventor to the operating company.

• 2023-05-01 (executed) / recorded 2023-05-03

  • Conveyance: Security Interest
  • Assignor: ADEIA GUIDES INC., ADEIA IMAGING LLC, ADEIA MEDIA HOLDINGS LLC, ADEIA MEDIA SOLUTIONS INC., ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR ADVANCED TECHNOLOGIES INC., ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR BONDING TECHNOLOGIES INC., ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR INC., ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR SOLUTIONS LLC, ADEIA SEMICONDUCTOR TECHNOLOGIES LLC, ADEIA SOLUTIONS LLC
  • Assignee: BANK OF AMERICA, N.A., AS COLLATERAL AGENT
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided data
  • Context: Pledging of intellectual property as collateral for a loan, a common financial transaction for corporate entities.

• 2024-09-30 (executed) / recorded 2024-10-04

  • Conveyance: Change of Name
  • Assignor: ROVI GUIDES, INC.
  • Assignee: ADEIA GUIDES INC.
  • Correspondent: Not available from provided data
  • Context: Formal corporate name change of the owning entity, Rovi Guides Inc, to Adeia Guides Inc.

Timeline diagram

timeline
    title Ownership of US 11632413
    2022 : Filed by Rovi Guides Inc
         : Assigned from inventor
    2023 : Issued
         : Security agreement to BofA
    2024 : Rovi name change to Adeia
    2026 : Active

NPE / troll-pattern signals

1. Shell-entity transfer — Unclear. While Adeia Guides Inc operates as a pure-play intellectual property licensing company, monetizing patent rights primarily in semiconductors and media entertainment, it is also part of a larger corporate structure that includes other technology brands (e.g., DTS, Xperi automotive solutions). Its focus on IP licensing and enforcement, with high-margin recurring revenue, aligns with how many NPEs operate. However, it is not a simple, single-purpose shell LLC with no other business presence, making a definitive "Present" for "shell-entity" less clear than for pure shell entities.
2. Known asserter in the chain — Present. The current assignee, Adeia Guides Inc (formerly Rovi Guides Inc), is a prominent entity in the intellectual property landscape with a long history of patent assertion and licensing. Adeia and its predecessors (like Rovi and TiVo) are frequently involved in patent litigation against major technology and media companies, as evidenced by numerous legal actions, including against Comcast, Bell Canada, Videotron, and Disney. This strong and consistent pattern of enforcement aligns with the characteristics of a known patent asserter.
3. Repeat correspondent across the chain — Unclear. Due to the inability to access live USPTO Assignment Center search results, the names and firms of the correspondents involved in recording these transactions are not available.
4. Cascading transfers — Not present. The ownership chain includes an initial assignment from the inventor, a corporate name change, and a security interest, but does not show multiple consecutive assignments through chained LLCs within a short period.
5. Pre-litigation transfer — Not present. As stated in the previously generated litigation summary, no litigation naming US11632413 has been found as of April 26, 2026.
6. Bankruptcy fire-sale — Not present. There is no indication from the provided information that Rovi Guides Inc or Adeia Guides Inc has filed for bankruptcy.
7. Privateering — Unclear. Adeia's business model is primarily direct IP licensing and enforcement. While its actions can benefit certain operating companies by enforcing patents they might also hold, it typically operates as the primary asserting entity rather than being a "privateer" acting on behalf of a specific operating company against its competitors.
8. Defensive aggregator (anti-NPE) — Not present. The patent is currently held by Adeia Guides Inc, which is an active patent licensor and enforcer, not a defensive aggregator like RPX or AST.

Verdict

NPE — high confidence

This verdict is based on the strong signal that Adeia Guides Inc (formerly Rovi Guides Inc) is a well-known and active patent assertion entity, whose business model is heavily centered on licensing and enforcing its extensive patent portfolio. Their history includes frequent litigation against major companies to secure licensing revenues. The patent transferred from the inventor to Rovi Guides Inc (recorded 2022-07-19) and later underwent a name change to Adeia Guides Inc (recorded 2024-10-04), maintaining ownership within this established IP monetization framework.

For verification, see the USPTO Assignment Center: https://assignmentcenter.uspto.gov/ (search for patent number US11632413).

I'll research the specific patent and its citation records. Let me run several searches.

Let me get the detailed citation lists from multiple sources.

I have the Justia citation list. Let me verify it against the patent's front page (the "(56) References Cited" list) and the Google Patents citations table.

Prior-Art Analysis — US 11,632,413 B1

"Methods and systems for streaming media content" | Inventor: Tao Chen | Appl. No. 17/867,442 | Filed 2022‑07‑18 | Granted 2023‑04‑18 | Current assignee: Adeia Guides Inc (orig. Rovi Guides Inc)

1. Scope, Method, and Verification Status

What I did: ran targeted searches for the literal number 11632413 against Google Patents, Justia Patents, Espacenet, and general web indexes in order to pull the patent's own "(56) References Cited" list (as opposed to citations to the patent, which is a different table).

What I verified:

Explicit limitations (please read before relying on this):

1. I could not retrieve the examiner's actual Notice of Allowance / reasons for allowance or the IDS transmittal. Therefore I cannot state that any of these references was applied in a § 102 rejection during prosecution. "Listed on the face of the patent" ≠ "applied as anticipation."
2. My element-level mapping for several references is inferred from citation context, title/assignee genre, and publication date, not from full-text review of each reference. Where I am not confident about a reference's substance, I say so explicitly rather than guess.
3. Where search results conflicted with expectations, I followed the search results (per the operating rules).

Literal-ID collision warnings (per the rule to interpret identifiers literally and not auto-correct):

• A Plainsite assignment record shows "Patent Application No. 11632413, Filed May 2, 2008" (DaimlerChrysler AG / "Motor Vehicle Door," pub. 2008/0258495). That is a different identifier — the application serial 11/632,413 — not US Patent 11,632,413. Do not merge these records.
• The Google Patents page for CN 106416181 A displays a "Citations (8)" table (US 7,873,710; WO 2011/081604; US 2011/0225417; US 2013/0007223; US 2013/0166906; US 8,495,237; EP 2073486; EP 2388746). Those are CN 106416181 A's own citations, not US 11,632,413's. Scrapers frequently mis-attribute this table.
• A Google Patents page for WO 2007/130878 A3 likewise lists US 11,632,413 in a citing-documents table; that is not a citation by US 11,632,413.

One clarification on the previously generated sections: the Google Patents entry "Prior art date: 2022‑07‑18" is simply the patent's own effective filing date (this application claims no earlier priority — Appl. 17/867,442 was filed 2022‑07‑18 and it is the earliest member; the WO/EP/JP/KR/CA/AU members were all later-filed, 2023‑07‑17). It is not evidence of prior art. No contradiction with the earlier sections otherwise.

Prior-art cutoff. Because the earliest effective filing date is 2022‑07‑18:

• Art publicly available before 2022‑07‑18 → § 102(a)(1).
• U.S. patents/applications that published or issued after 2022‑07‑18 count only under § 102(a)(2), and only if their own effective filing date predates 2022‑07‑18.

2. Complete "References Cited" List (as retrieved)

2A. U.S. Patent Documents

2B. Foreign Patent Documents

2C. Non-Patent Literature ("Other Publications")

Pattern observation. The NPL set is a coherent block of adaptive-streaming QoE psychophysics literature (temporal pooling, quality-switching impact, expectation-confirmation). This is highly consistent with the patent's claimed problem (abrupt quality steps harm QoE; smoothing helps), and these papers are the natural § 103 support references for the motivation to smooth transitions.

3. Reference-by-Reference Analysis and Potential § 102 Mapping

The independent claims to map against are claim 1 (method), claim 13 (system/user device), claim 14 (buffer-based method), claim 15 (two-portion buffering method). Dependent claims 2–12 add: resolution/VQA determination, target-resolution threshold, threshold quality difference, threshold based on genre/live-vs-VOD/user preferences/bandwidth history/device parameters, bandwidth-or-sample-rate reduction, bandwidth monitoring over time, first/second time determination, quality-reduction profile parameters, buffer-duration monitoring, and QoE-module activation logic (see previously generated claim summary).

The single element that separates this patent from ordinary ABR art is: client-side reduction of the quality of an already-received (higher-quality) portion before it enters the playback buffer, i.e., deliberately discarding quality to smooth a step. Ordinary ABR systems do the opposite — they maximize quality. That is the element to test § 102 against.

Reference 1 — US 10,536,500 B2 (Halepovic et al.), 2020‑01‑14

Description (moderate confidence): ABR/streaming adaptation art involving selection among multiple bitrate representations in response to network conditions and buffer state. Assignee genre: network operator R&D.
Potential § 102 target: claims 1, 13, 14 — supply the "receive at bandwidth / quality based on bandwidth" and "buffer at target quality based on bandwidth" elements. Unlikely on its own to anticipate claim 1's final step, because maximizing-quality ABR selection is the antithesis of reducing quality client-side. Confidence in element-level mapping: low–moderate (full text not reviewed).

Reference 2 — US 10,542,315 B2 (Shaw et al.), 2020‑01‑21

Description: Retrieved title/assignee data only; streaming/quality-adaptation genre. I cannot describe its disclosure with confidence.
Potential § 102 target: claims 1/13/14 (background-quality-selection elements). Unverified.

Reference 3 — US 11,201,904 B2 (Stumbo et al.), 2021‑12‑14

Description: Title/assignee data only. Cannot describe with confidence.
Potential § 102 target: claims 1/13/14. Unverified.

Reference 4 — US 11,470,355 B2 (Persiantsev et al.), 2022‑10‑11

Description: Title/assignee data only.
§ 102 posture: issued after the 2022‑07‑18 filing date, so it is not § 102(a)(1) art. It can only be § 102(a)(2) art if its own effective filing date predates 2022‑07‑18 — which I have not verified (the front page would show the priority chain). Flag: verify its earliest priority claim before relying on it.
Potential § 102 target (if 102(a)(2) qualifies): claims 1/13/14/15.

Reference 5 — US 2008/0043643 A1 (Thielman et al.), 2008‑02‑21

Description (higher confidence): "Video encoder adjustment based on latency" — adjusting encoder/encoding parameters in response to latency/network conditions (encoder-side, not client-side playout).
Potential § 102 target: weak — arguably reaches only the "quality is based on available bandwidth" premise of claim 1; it operates on the encode side and does not reduce the quality of an already-decoded portion before buffering. Most useful as § 103 background (bandwidth-responsive quality adjustment was long known by 2008).

Reference 6 — US 2014/0289764 A1 (Mallika et al.), 2014‑09‑25

Description: Title/assignee data only. Unverified.
Potential § 102 target: claims 1/13/14 (partial). Note the duplicate-inventor pairing with Reference 8 (Mallika, 2018) — likely the same family/lineage. Consider as one combined § 103 teaching rather than two independent § 102 hits.

Reference 7 — US 2016/0012795 A1 (Banski et al.), 2016‑01‑14

Description: Title/assignee data only. Unverified. Potential § 102 target: claims 1/13/14.

Reference 8 — US 2018/0054651 A1 (Mallika et al.), 2018‑02‑22

See Reference 6 — same inventor group; treat as a family continuation.

Reference 9 — US 2019/0387426 A1 (Lee), 2019‑12‑19

Description: Title/assignee data only. Unverified. Potential § 102 target: claims 1/13/14.

Reference 10 — US 2020/0077132 A1 (Sivaramalingam et al.), 2020‑03‑05

Description: Title/assignee data only. Unverified. Potential § 102 target: claims 1/13/14/15 (buffer + quality concepts, if borne out by full text).

Reference 11 — US 2020/0177660 A1 (Connor et al.), 2020‑06‑04

Description: Title/assignee data only. Unverified. Potential § 102 target: claims 1/13/14.

Reference 12 — US 2022/0374197 A1 (Carrigan et al.), 2022‑11‑24

§ 102 posture: published after the 2022‑07‑18 filing date → § 102(a)(2) only, and only if its earliest effective filing date predates 2022‑07‑18 (plausible for a late‑2022 publication, but unverified).
Potential § 102 target (if eligible): claims 1/13/14/15. This is a priority-date-sensitive reference; it is one of the two on the list most worth an effective-filing-date check (with Reference 4).

References 13–16 — CM/WO foreign art

• CN 105451075 A (2018‑07) — Chinese publication; title not retrieved. § 102(a)(1) if an English-language equivalent or certified translation establishes the disclosure.
• WO 2007/130879 A (2007‑11) — title not retrieved.
• WO 2013/043923 A (2013‑03) — title not retrieved. (The 2013‑03 date places it in the heart of the early DASH/ABR standardization period.)
• WO 2016/151974 A (2016‑09) — title not retrieved.

Potential § 102 targets: generically claims 1/13/14 for the bandwidth→quality and quality-threshold predicates; unverified at element level. Note the practical limitation: foreign-language art needs a translation for § 102 to be provable, and none of these carries a U.S. counterpart in the retrieved data.

References 17–22 — QoE NPL

These are printed publications predating 2022‑07‑18 and therefore § 102(a)(1)-eligible in form. However, they are subjective/perceptual QoE studies, not streaming systems, so they will rarely disclose all steps of claims 1/13/14/15 and are poor § 102 anticipation vehicles. Their real value is § 103 motive: Rodriguez et al. (2014) directly documents that quality-level switching itself degrades QoE; Duanmu et al. (2018) frames QoE degradation via expectation-confirmation (a user "takes good quality for granted" and an abrupt drop violates the expectation); Bampis et al. (2021) and Tavakoli et al. (2016) supply perceptual-optimization frameworks; Bai/Tu supply temporal-pooling metrics (relevant to dependents reciting a "visual quality assessment"/VQA and a "quality threshold" being perceptual rather than pure resolution).

4. Additional Candidate Art Flagged in Citation Listings (Unconfirmed on the U.S. Face)

While searching, citation tables associated with the PCT counterpart WO 2024/019956 A1 (and one sibling case) surfaced the following, which are conceptually the most on-point items I saw for the smoothing limitation:

⚠️ Caveat: these appeared in scraped/merged citation tables on counterpart-document pages, and my extract of US 11,632,413's own (56) list (from Justia) did not include Reznik. I cannot confirm whether US 2013/0282917 A1 is cited on the face of US 11,632,413, or whether it appeared only via the WO counterpart's search report. This must be checked against the actual front page of the granted patent (USPTO PatentCenter, "References Cited," or the patentimages PDF).

5. Bottom-Line Assessment

1. Best § 102 candidates on the (as-retrieved) cited list: the four U.S. patents (Halepovic 10,536,500; Shaw 10,542,315; Stumbo 11,201,904; Persiantsev 11,470,355) plus U.S. publication 2020/0077132 (Sivaramalingam). Each plausibly reads on the bandwidth→quality and buffering predicates of claims 1, 13, 14 — but none is likely to anticipate the distinctive step of client-side reduction of an already-received higher-quality portion before the playback buffer, absent full-text support I could not verify.
2. Priority-date-gated art: US 11,470,355 (2022‑10‑11) and US 2022/0374197 (2022‑11‑24) postdate the filing; they are usable only under § 102(a)(2) and only if their effective filing dates predate 2022‑07‑18. Verify both.
3. Weakest § 102 references: Thielman 2008/0043643 (encoder-side) and all six QoE papers (studies, not systems). The QoE papers are nonetheless the strongest § 103 motivation evidence (Rodriguez 2014; Duanmu 2018 in particular).
4. Gap in the cited art: nothing I retrieved directly targets the degrade-the-buffer-contents-to-smooth-a-step mechanic. The closest conceptual match — Reznik, US 2013/0282917 A1, "smooth stream switching in MPEG/3GPP-DASH" — is the reference a challenger should chase down first, subject to the verification caveat in §4.
5. No anticipation conclusion is supportable at the claim level from the citation list alone. Anticipation requires that a single reference disclose every element, including the reduction-before-buffering step and its threshold conditions; the retrieved record does not let me assert that for any reference, and I will not guess.

Recommended next steps to close the gaps: (a) pull the granted patent's front page (56) list from USPTO PatentCenter / patentimages to confirm the citation set is complete and to resolve the Reznik question; (b) pull the PTAB/FPR file wrapper (Application No. 17/867,442) for the IDS and any § 102/§ 103 rejections and their examiner citations; (c) obtain full texts of references 1–4, 10, and 12 and verify effective filing dates for reference 4 and 12.

I cannot perform an obviousness analysis for US patent 11632413 under 35 U.S.C. § 103 with the information provided.

To conduct an obviousness analysis, specific prior art references (e.g., patents, publications, or widely known techniques) are required. The provided patent text includes "Prior art keywords" (quality, media content, content item, threshold, control circuitry) and a "Prior art date" (2022-07-18), but it does not list any actual prior art references that I can combine and analyze against the claims of US11632413.

Without a list of specific prior art references, I cannot identify combinations of references or explain the motivation a person having ordinary skill in the art would have had to combine them to render the claims obvious.