DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 31 July 2023 for application 18/228,569 filed 31 July 2023. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected. 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. Claim Objections Claim(s) 1- 20 is /are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 1, line 19, task indicator should read “task indicator s ” Claim 1, lines 22-23, do no t that indicate that should read “do not that indicate that” Claim 8, line 19, task indicator should read “task indicator s ” Claim 8, lines 22-23, do no t that indicate that should read “do not that indicate that” Claim 15, line 19, task indicator should read “task indicator s ” Claim 15, lines 22-23, do no t that indicate that should read “do not that indicate that” Claims 2-7, 9-14 , 16-20 are objected to due to their dependence, either directly or indirectly, on claim(s) 1, 8 , 15 Appropriate correction is required. 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. Claim(s) 1-20 is/ are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101, because the claim (s) is/ are directed to an abstract idea, and because the claim elements, whether considered individually or in combination, do not amount to significantly more than the abstract idea, see Alice Corporation Pty. Ltd. V. CLS Bank International et al. , 573 US 208 (2014). Regarding claim 1 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 1 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium storing a set of parameters for a multitask model . The limitation of initializing the multitask model comprising a plurality of layers of a multitask neural network, wherein the plurality of layers comprises a set of shared layers and a plurality of sets of branch layers, wherein each of the sets of branch layers corresponds to one of a plurality of tasks to be predicted by the multitask model, and wherein an output layer of the set of shared layers is connected to an input layer of each of set of branch layers , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generating an output score corresponding to each of the plurality of tasks ... , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of computing a loss score for each of the plurality of tasks based on the corresponding output score, the label of the training example, the task indicator of the training example, and a corresponding conditional loss function for the task, wherein a conditional loss function for a task is a loss function that computes a loss score of zero when the task indicators of a training example do not that indicate that the training example is relevant to the task of the conditional loss function , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a loss score . The limitation of for each of the loss scores, backpropagating through the corresponding set of branch layers and the set of shared layers using the loss score to update a set of parameters of the set of branch layers and the set of shared layers , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating parameter updates . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – computer-readable medium . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) . The claim recites additional element(s) – multitask model, multitask neural network . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites ... by applying the multitask model to the input features of the training example which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim recites accessing a set of training examples, wherein each training example comprises a set of input features, a plurality of task indicators, and a label, wherein each task indicator corresponds to one of the plurality of tasks and indicates whether the training example is relevant to the corresponding task; storing the sets of parameters of the set of shared layers and the plurality of sets of branch layers as the set of parameters for the multitask model , which is simply acquiring and storing data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 element ( s ) o f: computer-readable medium amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) applying a model amount (s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) acquiring and storing data amount (s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) , wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit (y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d)) multitask model, multitask neural network amount (s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do (es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 2 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 2 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium storing a set of parameters for a multitask model . The limitation of compute a loss score reflecting a performance of the multitask model in computing an output score when the task indicators of a training example indicate that the training example is relevant to the task of the conditional loss function , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a loss score . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 3 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 3 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium storing a set of parameters for a multitask model . The limitation of applying mean squared error, binary cross-entropy loss, categorical cross-entropy loss, Hinge loss, or KL divergence to compute the loss score , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a loss score . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 4 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 4 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium storing a set of parameters for a multitask model . The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 4 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each task indicator of the plurality of task indicators is an indicator bit . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the task indicators and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 element(s) of additional information regarding the task indicators do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 5 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 5 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium storing a set of parameters for a multitask model . The limitation of multiplying an indicator bit for a corresponding task of the conditional loss function by a loss score computed by a loss subfunction , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a loss score . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 6 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 6 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium storing a set of parameters for a multitask model . The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 6 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the process is performed using a machine-learning programming library or a machine-learning platform . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein the process is performed using a machine-learning programming library or a machine-learning platform which is simply additional information regarding the method , and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – machine-learning programming library, machine-learning platform . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 element ( s ) o f: machine-learning programming library, machine-learning platform amount (s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) additional information regarding the method do ( es ) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do (es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 7 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium storing a set of parameters for a multitask model . The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 7 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each training example of the set of training examples comprises a set of labels, wherein each of the set of labels corresponds to a task indicator of the set of task indicators that indicates that the training examples is relevant to a corresponding task . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 8 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 8 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for training a multitask neural network. The limitation of initializing a multitask model comprising a plurality of layers of a multitask neural network, wherein the plurality of layers comprises a set of shared layers and a plurality of sets of branch layers, wherein each of the sets of branch layers corresponds to one of a plurality of tasks to be predicted by the multitask model, and wherein an output layer of the set of shared layers is connected to an input layer of each of set of branch layers , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generating an output score corresponding to each of the plurality of tasks ... , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of computing a loss score for each of the plurality of tasks based on the corresponding output score, the label of the training example, the task indicator of the training example, and a corresponding conditional loss function for the task, wherein a conditional loss function for a task is a loss function that computes a loss score of zero when the task indicators of a training example do not that indicate that the training example is relevant to the task of the conditional loss function , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a loss score . The limitation of for each of the loss scores, backpropagating through the corresponding set of branch layers and the set of shared layers using the loss score to update a set of parameters of the set of branch layers and the set of shared layers , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating parameter updates . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – computer system, processor, computer-readable medium . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) . The claim recites additional element(s) – multitask neural network , multitask model . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites ... by applying the multitask model to the input features of the training example which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim recites accessing a set of training examples, wherein each training example comprises a set of input features, a plurality of task indicators, and a label, wherein each task indicator corresponds to one of the plurality of tasks and indicates whether the training example is relevant to the corresponding task; storing the sets of parameters of the set of shared layers and the plurality of sets of branch layers as the set of parameters for the multitask model , which is simply acquiring and storing data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 element ( s ) o f: computer system, processor, computer-readable medium amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) applying a model amount (s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) acquiring and storing data amount (s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) , wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit (y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d)) multitask neural network, multitask model amount (s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do (es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 9 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 9 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for training a multitask neural network. The limitation of compute a loss score reflecting a performance of the multitask model in computing an output score when the task indicators of a training example indicate that the training example is relevant to the task of the conditional loss function , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a loss score . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 10 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 10 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for training a multitask neural network. The limitation of applying mean squared error, binary cross-entropy loss, categorical cross-entropy loss, Hinge loss, or KL divergence to compute the loss score , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a loss score . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 11 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 11 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for training a multitask neural network. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 11 carries out the method of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each task indicator of the plurality of task indicators is an indicator bit . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the task indicators and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 element(s) of additional information regarding the task indicators do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 12 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 12 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for training a multitask neural network. The limitation of multiplying an indicator bit for a corresponding task of the conditional loss function by a loss score computed by a loss subfunction , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a loss score . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 13 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 13 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for training a multitask neural network. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 13 carries out the method of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the method is performed using a machine-learning programming library or a machine-learning platform . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein the method is performed using a machine-learning programming library or a machine-learning platform which is simply additional information regarding the method , and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – machine-learning programming library, machine-learning platform . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 element ( s ) o f: machine-learning programming library, machine-learning platform amount (s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) additional information regarding the method do ( es ) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do (es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 14 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a(n) method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method for training a multitask neural network. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 14 carries out the method of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each training example of the set of training examples comprises a set of labels, wherein each of the set of labels corresponds to a task indicator of the set of task indicators that indicates that the training examples is relevant to a corresponding task . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the data and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 element(s) of additional information regarding the data do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 15 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 15 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium . The limitation of initializing a multitask model comprising a plurality of layers of a multitask neural network, wherein the plurality of layers comprises a set of shared layers and a plurality of sets of branch layers, wherein each of the sets of branch layers corresponds to one of a plurality of tasks to be predicted by the multitask model, and wherein an output layer of the set of shared layers is connected to an input layer of each of set of branch layers , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of generating an output score corresponding to each of the plurality of tasks ... , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mental process. The limitation is directed to observation, evaluation, judgment and opinion and is a process capable of being performed by a human mentally or using pen and paper. The limitation of computing a loss score for each of the plurality of tasks based on the corresponding output score, the label of the training example, the task indicator of the training example, and a corresponding conditional loss function for the task, wherein a conditional loss function for a task is a loss function that computes a loss score of zero when the task indicators of a training example do not that indicate that the training example is relevant to the task of the conditional loss function , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a loss score . The limitation of for each of the loss scores, backpropagating through the corresponding set of branch layers and the set of shared layers using the loss score to update a set of parameters of the set of branch layers and the set of shared layers , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating parameter updates . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the mind, then it falls within the "Mental Processes" grouping. If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites additional element(s) – computer-readable medium, instructions, processor . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality (i.e., as generic computer components performing generic computer functions of executing instructions on the computers) such that it amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) . The claim recites additional element(s) – multitask model, multitask neural network . Th e additional element (s) is /are recited at a high-level of generality such that it amounts to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)). The claim recites ... by applying the multitask model to the input features of the training example which is simply applying a model recited at a high level of generality and amounts to the recitation of the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) or amounts to no more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (MPEP 2106.05(f)). The claim recites accessing a set of training examples, wherein each training example comprises a set of input features, a plurality of task indicators, and a label, wherein each task indicator corresponds to one of the plurality of tasks and indicates whether the training example is relevant to the corresponding task; storing the sets of parameters of the set of shared layers and the plurality of sets of branch layers as the set of parameters for the multitask model , which is simply acquiring and storing data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 element ( s ) o f: computer-readable medium, instructions, processor amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) applying a model amount (s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) acquiring and storing data amount (s) to no more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)) , wherein the insignificant extra-solution activity is the well-understood routine and conventional activit (y/ies) of receiving or transmitting data over a network and/or storing and retrieving information in memory (MPEP 2016.05(d)) multitask model, multitask neural network amount (s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do (es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 16 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium . The limitation of compute a loss score reflecting a performance of the multitask model in computing an output score when the task indicators of a training example indicate that the training example is relevant to the task of the conditional loss function , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a loss score . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 17 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 17 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium . The limitation of applying mean squared error, binary cross-entropy loss, categorical cross-entropy loss, Hinge loss, or KL divergence to compute the loss score , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a loss score . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 claim does not recite any additional elements which provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 18 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 18 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium . The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 15 is applicable here since claim 18 carries out the computer-readable medium of claim 15 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein each task indicator of the plurality of task indicators is an indicator bit . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. In particular, the claim recites additional information regarding the task indicators and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Accordingly, the additional element(s) do(es) not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because the additional element(s) do(es) not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea, and, therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B Analysis: The claim does not include 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 element(s) of additional information regarding the task indicators do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). Not applying the exception in a meaningful way does not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 19 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a(n) computer-readable medium, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-readable medium . The limitation of multiplying an indicator bit for a corresponding task of the conditional loss function by a loss score computed by a loss subfunction , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a loss score . If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of mathematical concepts, then it falls within the "Mathematical Concepts" grouping. According ly , the claim recites an abstract idea. Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim does not recite any additional elements which integrate the abstract idea into a practical application and, therefore, does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea. Therefore, the claim is directed to an abstract idea.