DETAILED ACTION This communication is in response to the Application filed on 12/07/2022. Claims 1-20 are pending and have been examined. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement The IDS dated 12/07/2022 has been considered and placed in the application file. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. All of the claims are method claims ( 1-7 ), apparatus/machine claims ( 8-20 ) or manufacture claim under (Step 1), but under Step 2A all of these claims recite abstract ideas and specifically mental processes. These mental processes are more particularly r ecited in claims 1, 8, and 15 as: monitoring a conversation … deriving a conversation alignment model based on the conversation … identifying a misalignment in the conversation… taking an action to align the conversation based on the conversation alignment model… Under Step 2A Prong One, claims 1, 8, and 15 are directed to an abstract idea and specifically a mental process. As detailed above, the steps of monitoring , deriving , identifying, etc. may be practically performed in the human mind with the use of a physical aid such as a pen and paper. For example, a human mediator could listen to a conversation between two participants , mentally form a model of the conversation based on conversation context and topics , identify a disagreement between the two participants , and then recommend an alternative course of conversation based on the conversation model in order to avoid the disagreement . Under Step 2A Prong Two, this judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because claims 1, 8, and 15 do not recite additional elements that integrate the exception into a practical application. In particular, claims 1, 8, and 15 recite the additional elements of a processor (¶ [ 0018 ]), computer-readable tangible storage medium (¶ [00 15 ]), and a computer program (¶ [ 0015 ]). These additional elements are recited at a high level of generality and merely equate to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Under Step 2B, the claims do not recite additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. As discussed above with respect to the integration of the abstract idea into a practical application, the additional elements of using a computer is noted as a general computer { processor (¶ [0018]); computer-readable tangible storage medium (¶ [0015]); computer program (¶ [0015]) }. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The claims are not patent eligible. With respect to claims 2, 9, and 16 , the claim relates to the conversation being synchronous . This relates to the mediator listening to a live conversation between two participants . No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to claims 3, 10, and 17, the claim relates to analyzing the conversation using natural language processing. This relates to the mediator using their listening skills to understand the conversation. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to claims 4, 11, and 18, the claim relates to building alignment models for each user in a conversation. This relates to the mediator mentally forming a behavior model for each participant, the behavior model describing a participant’s respective behavior in the conversation. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to claims 5, 12, and 19 , the claim relates to deriving higher conversation alignment models from at least two lower conversation alignment models . This relates to the mediator first modelling the behavior of each participant, then modelling the conversation as a whole based on the behavior models of each participant . The limitation of “federated learning” is recited at a high level of generality (¶ [0048]) and merely equates to “apply it” or otherwise merely uses a generic computer as a tool to perform an abstract which are not indicative of integration into a practical application as per MPEP 2106.05(f). No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to claims 6, 13, and 20, the claim relates to providing a resource as the action to align conversations. This relates to the mediator correcting misinformation from one of the participants of the conversation by providing external resources from experts on the subject matter. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. With respect to claims 7 and 14, the claim relates to automatically modifying a message or post as the action to align conversations. This relates to the mediator correcting a participant’s message to be less negative. No additional limitations are present. The claim does not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. For all of the above reasons, taken alone or in combination, claims 1- 20 recite a non-statutory mental process. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. Claims 1-3, 7-10, and 14-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over US Patent Publication 20210287664 A1 (Bart et al.) in view of US Patent Publication 20190297035 A1 (Fox et al. ) . Claim 1 Regarding claim 1 , Bart et al. disclose a processor-implemented method, the method comprising: monitoring a conversation (Bart et al. ¶ [0015], "A machine learning module 110 extracts cues 112-115 from the digital audio stream 106-109. ... The cues 112-115 may include any combination of latent topics, prosodic cues, textual representations etc., that can detect a misalignment in the conversation 100 between the first party 102 and the second party 104.") ; deriving a conversation alignment model based on the conversation (Bart et al. ¶ [0016], "the module 110 may use unsupervised or partially supervised methods to detect misalignment. As indicated by distribution 116, one way to determine misalignment is to determine the probability of each cue 112-115 occurring in the conversation 100 under the module 110′s internal “normalcy model”.") ; identifying a misalignment in the conversation (Bart et al. ¶ [0016], "The source from which this cue was extracted (e.g. the specific turn in the conversation) may be used to locate misalignment within the conversation. ... determining misalignment may involve detecting a prosodic cue that indicates anger, annoyance, confusion, etc., detecting word patterns such as “I don't understand,” “I'm confused,” etc.") ; and taking an action [to align the conversation] based on the conversation alignment model (Bart et al. ¶ [0027], "The alignment detection framework can be used to provide different services to end users. For example, the alignment data determined via the classifier 328 may used by a real-time dashboard 330. The dashboard 330 is updated after every call with alignment statistics, and may utilize a graphical user interface (GUI) showing each agent's performance. Sudden or gradual drops in performance compared to normal baseline for that agent can be detected and used to schedule breaks, adjust working hours, etc., in order to reduce stress and prevent burnout." Scheduling breaks, adjusting working hours, etc. is considered analogous to taking an action) . Bart et al. do not explicitly disclose all of an action that aligns a conversation. However, Fox et al. disclose taking an action to align the conversation (Fox et al. ¶ [0029], "the system 400 may invoke an emotive message correction service module 430 to correct and re-publish the message and/or generate alerts to inform contributors that an emotive correction is required. ... In one embodiment, if the text in a message utterance exceeds a pre-defined threshold, the message will require a correction, i.e., to reduce the level of negative emotion to conform to a threshold. The emotive analysis provides the type of correction which is required, and which the participant has the ability to insert such a correction." Reducing negativity, correcting messages, or alerting contributors in an effort to improve a conversation is considered analogous to taking an action to align a conversation) It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Bart et al.’s alignment detection system to incorporate Fox et al.’s alignment correction . The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “ Like a real-time discussion that happens between people face to face, it would be useful to have a “voice of reason” who can help diffuse a situation before it gets to heated, ” as noted by the Fox et al. disclosure in paragraph [ 0003 ]. Claim 2 Regarding claim 2, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated . Bart et al. in view of Fox et al. disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as stated above. Bart et al. further disclose wherein the conversation is a synchronous conversation (Bart et al. ¶ [0014], "One or more audio streams of a conversation 100 between a first party 102 and a second party 104 are recorded.... Each of the blocks 106-109 indicates a “turn” in the conversation, where one or the other of the parties 102, 104 is speaking. In the example in FIG. 1, each party's speech is recorded in a separate audio channel or stream." A live call is considered analogous to a synchronous conversation) . Claim 3 Regarding claim 3, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bart et al. in view of Fox et al. disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as stated above. Bart et al. further disclose wherein monitoring the conversation includes creating analyzed data based on analyzing the conversation using natural language processing (Bart et al. ¶ [0015], "A machine learning module 110 extracts cues 112-115 from the digital audio stream 106-109. In this example, the machine learning module 110 is shown as a neural network. It will be understood that a number of different machine learning algorithms may be used, and a multitude of different machine learning modules may be used at different levels of abstraction.") . Claim 7 Regarding claim 7, the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bart et al. in view of Fox et al. disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as stated above. Fox et al. further disclose wherein the action includes automatically modifying a message or post (Fox et al. ¶ [0045]-[0047], "for example, given input text: Input text=“I had never spoken to her, except for a few casual words, and yet her name was like a spiteful summons to all my deadly foolish blood.” ... an emotive correction action may be provided which action may be taken by the emotive message correction service 430 at the computing system 400 of FIG. 4 to replace the input text with the following emotive corrected text: output text=“I had never spoken to her, except for a few casual words, and yet her name was like a calling, like a cry for survival.”") . Claim 8 Regarding claim 8 , Bart et al. disclose one or more processors, one or more computer-readable memories, one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium, and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium for execution by at least one of the one or more processors via at least one of the one or more memories (Bart et al. ¶ [0022], "The apparatus 300 includes one or more processors 302 such as a central processing unit, co-processor, digital signal processor, etc. The processor 302 is coupled to memory, which may include both random access memory 304 and persistent storage 306, via one or more input/output busses 308." ¶ [0030], "the flowcharts and control diagrams illustrated herein may be used to create computer-readable instructions/code for execution by a processor.") . The remaining limitations of claim 8 are similar in scope to that of claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above. Claim 9 Regarding claim 9, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 9 are similar in scope to that of claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above. Claim 10 Regarding claim 10, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 10 are similar in scope to that of claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above. Claim 14 Regarding claim 14, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 14 are similar in scope to that of claim 7 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above. Claim 15 Regarding claim 15 , Bart et al. disclose one or more computer-readable tangible storage medium and program instructions stored on at least one of the one or more tangible storage medium, the program instructions executable by a processor capable of performing a method (Bart et al. ¶ [0022], "The apparatus 300 includes one or more processors 302 such as a central processing unit, co-processor, digital signal processor, etc. The processor 302 is coupled to memory, which may include both random access memory 304 and persistent storage 306, via one or more input/output busses 308." ¶ [0030], "the flowcharts and control diagrams illustrated herein may be used to create computer-readable instructions/code for execution by a processor.") . The remaining limitations of claim 15 are similar in scope to that of claim 1 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above. Claim 16 Regarding claim 16, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 16 are similar in scope to that of claim 2 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above. Claim 17 Regarding claim 17, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 17 are similar in scope to that of claim 3 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above. Claims 4, 5, 11, 12, 18, and 19 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bart et al. in view of Fox et al. as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above , and further in view of US Patent Publication 20230050655 A1 (Song et al.) . Claim 4 Regarding claim 4 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bart et al. in view of Fox et al. disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as stated above. Bart et al. further disclose wherein the conversation includes two or more users (Bart et al. ¶ [0014], "One or more audio streams of a conversation 100 between a first party 102 and a second party 104 are recorded") . Bart et al. in view of Fox et al. do not explicitly disclose all of deriving user models. However, Song et al. disclose wherein the conversation includes two or more users (Song et al. ¶ [0014], "One or more conversations of the corpus may include dialog messages between a user and an agent, which may be, or may have been, a real person or a chat agent") , and one user conversation [alignment] model is derived per user from the two or more users (Song et al. ¶ [0058], "A data holder D i may initialize two GPT-2 models, classified as user side GPT-2 and assistant side GPT-2. For any j t h conversation c i j , the user-side GPT-2 models only the user utterances while the assistant side GPT-2 is responsible for modeling assistant utterances or generating replies based on the previous context. It will be appreciated that the utterances ... represent conversation messages between a live agent and a real person/user." GPT-2 models that model utterances for each party of a conversation are considered analogous to user conversation models) . Bart et al. disclose conversation alignment models. It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Bart et al. in view of Fox et al. to incorporate Song et al. ’s user models. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “ data holders may be service providers that have an incentive to share sensitive data of their users, subscribers, customers, etc. to improve the rendering of services to the users, subscribers, customers, etc. ... Accordingly, a method for training language models with data from multiple data owners, without revealing the raw data associated with the owners, is desirable ,” as noted by the Song et al. disclosure in paragraph [ 0004 ]. Claim 5 Regarding claim 5 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bart et al. in view of Fox et al. disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as stated above. Bart et al. in view of Fox et al. do not explicitly disclose all of federated learning . However, Song et al. disclose deriving two or more lower conversation alignment models (Song et al. ¶ [0072], "At step 410 user model 22A and assistant model 24A may be trained as described elsewhere herein by the user model determining query contexts corresponding to user query messages 34 stored in corpus 30 and sending the query contexts to the assistant model and by the user model 24A determining reply contexts corresponding to response messages 36 that correspond to the query messages and sending the reply contexts to the user model.") ; and deriving a higher conversation alignment model from the two or more lower conversation alignment models (Song et al. ¶ [0073]-[0074], "both user model(s) 22A-22n and assistant models may forward their corresponding updated parameters to parameter server 12. At step 420, parameter server 12 may perform a FedAvg algorithm on the updated parameters received from user models 22A-22n or updated parameters received from assistant models 24A-24n. The result of performing a FedAvg algorithm ... is that an updated central model may be created." A central model is considered analogous to a higher conversation model) using federated learning (Song et al. ¶ [0047], "the trained central model may be trained according to a federated process, such as, for example, FedAverage .") . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Bart et al. in view of Fox et al. to incorporate Song et al.’s user models. The suggestion/motivation for doing so is similar to the suggestion/motivation described above with respect to claim 4. Claim 11 Regarding claim 11, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 11 are similar in scope to that of claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above. Claim 12 Regarding claim 12, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 12 are similar in scope to that of claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above. Claim 18 Regarding claim 18, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 18 are similar in scope to that of claim 4 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above. Claim 19 Regarding claim 19, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 19 are similar in scope to that of claim 5 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above. Claims 6, 13, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as obvious over Bart et al. in view of Fox et al. as applied to claims 1, 8, and 15 above, and further in view of US Patent Publication 20190005023 A1 ( Olsen et al.) . Claim 6 Regarding claim 6 , the rejection of claim 1 is incorporated. Bart et al. in view of Fox et al. disclose all the elements of the claimed invention as stated above. Bart et al. in view of Fox et al. do not explicitly disclose all of deriving user models. However, Olsen et al. disclose wherein the action includes providing a resource to a user to explain a topic of the conversation (Olsen et al. ¶ [0025], "When the first participant uses language referencing an entity, such as a name of a project within the company, the second participant may be unfamiliar with the project name. The first participant may, continue conversation without realizing that the second participant is unfamiliar with the project. Natural language processing along with graph database may be employed to provide the correct information or context to the second participant in an efficient manner") . It would have been obvious to a person having ordinary skill in the art before the time of the effective filing date of the claimed invention of the instant application to modify Bart et al. in view of Fox et al. to incorporate Olsen et al.’s resource provision. The suggestion/motivation for doing so would have been that, “ Use of such words and phrases without becoming aware of other participants from different domains may lead to misunderstanding and frustrations by participants of the conversation. Assisting the conversation by providing explanations and additional information about these words with different meanings may be helpful ,” as noted by the Olsen et al. disclosure in paragraph [ 0023 ]. Claim 13 Regarding claim 13, the rejection of claim 8 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 13 are similar in scope to that of claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above. Claim 20 Regarding claim 20, the rejection of claim 15 is incorporated. The limitations of claim 29 are similar in scope to that of claim 6 and therefore are rejected for similar reasons as described above. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JACOB B VOGT whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7028 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday - Friday 9:30am - 7pm EST . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Paras D Shah can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-1650 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /JACOB B VOGT/ Examiner, Art Unit 2653 /DANIEL C WASHBURN/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 2657