DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 08 August 2023 for application 18/231,657 filed 08 August 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 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 method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for optimization of a continuous production process . The limitation of generating different prediction models based on the input data, wherein each of the different prediction models is configured to output a target prediction relating to the production equipment , 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 objective optimization model based on each target prediction output from each of the different prediction models, wherein the objective optimization model comprises a deep neural network , 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 a loss function corresponding to the objective optimization model , 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 optimizing a plurality of weights for a plurality of parameters of the different prediction models using backpropagation of the deep neural network and the loss function, resulting in a plurality of optimized weights for the parameters of the different prediction models , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating parameter values . 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-implemented . 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) – prediction models, objective optimization model, deep 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 receiving input data comprising a plurality of datasets each including one or more variables relating to a production equipment involved in the continuous production process , which is simply acquiring 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-implemented amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) acquiring 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)) prediction models, objective optimization model, deep 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 method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for optimization of a continuous production process . The limitation of splitting the datasets between a first group of datasets for training and a second group of datasets for testing , 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 defining a problem type for each of the different prediction models , 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 selecting a machine-learning algorithm for training each of the different prediction models , 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 selecting one or more statistical measures for evaluating performance of each the different prediction models , 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. 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. 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) – machine-learning algorithm . 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 algorithm 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 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 method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for optimization of a continuous production process . The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 3 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the datasets include different variables with different time ranges that correspond to the different prediction models . 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 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 method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for optimization of a continuous production process . The limitation of providing, as output, the optimized weights for the parameters of the different prediction models , 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. 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. 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 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 method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for optimization of a continuous production process . The limitation of providing, as output, the different prediction models with fixed parameters based on the optimized weights , 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. 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. 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 method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for optimization of a continuous production process . The limitation of generating an objective function corresponding to the objective optimization model, wherein the objective function represents one or more production optimization goals , 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 constraints corresponding to the objective optimization model , 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. 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. 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 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 method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for optimization of a continuous production process . The limitation of training the objective optimization model to minimize a difference quantified by the loss function, wherein the difference is between an expected objective value and a predicted objective value, the expected objective value is based on the objective function, and the predicted objective value is output from the objective optimization model , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a loss . 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 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 method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer-implemented method for optimization of a continuous production process . The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 8 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein an input layer of the deep neural network propagates initial weight matrices representing configurations of the different prediction models . 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 an input layer of the deep neural network propagates initial weight matrices representing configurations of the different prediction models which is simply applying the 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)). 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: applying the model amount (s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) 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 system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for optimization of a continuous production process . The limitation of generating different prediction models based on the input data, wherein each of the different prediction models is configured to output a target prediction relating to the production equipment , 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 objective optimization model based on each target prediction output from each of the different prediction models, wherein the objective optimization model comprises a deep neural network , 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 a loss function corresponding to the objective optimization model , 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 optimizing a plurality of weights for a plurality of parameters of the different prediction models using backpropagation of the deep neural network and the loss function, resulting in a plurality of optimized weights for the parameters of the different prediction models , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating parameter values . 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) – system, at least one processor, processor-readable memory device, instructions . 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) – prediction models, objective optimization model, deep 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 receiving input data comprising a plurality of datasets each including one or more variables relating to a production equipment involved in the continuous production process , which is simply acquiring 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: system, at least one processor, processor-readable memory device, instructions amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) acquiring 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)) prediction models, objective optimization model, deep 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 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 system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for optimization of a continuous production process . The limitation of splitting the datasets between a first group of datasets for training and a second group of datasets for testing , 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 defining a problem type for each of the different prediction models , 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 selecting a machine-learning algorithm for training each of the different prediction models , 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 selecting one or more statistical measures for evaluating performance of each the different prediction models , 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. 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. 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) – machine-learning algorithm . 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 algorithm 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 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 system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for optimization of a continuous production process . The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 9 is applicable here since claim 11 carries out the system of claim 9 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the datasets include different variables with different time ranges that correspond to the different prediction models . 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 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 system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for optimization of a continuous production process . The limitation of providing, as output, the optimized weights for the parameters of the different prediction models , 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. 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. 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 system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for optimization of a continuous production process . The limitation of providing, as output, the different prediction models with fixed parameters based on the optimized weights , 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. 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. 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 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 system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for optimization of a continuous production process . The limitation of generating an objective function corresponding to the objective optimization model, wherein the objective function represents one or more production optimization goals , 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 constraints corresponding to the objective optimization model , 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. 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. 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 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 system with a processor, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) system for optimization of a continuous production process . The limitation of training the objective optimization model to minimize a difference quantified by the loss function, wherein the difference is between an expected objective value and a predicted objective value, the expected objective value is based on the objective function, and the predicted objective value is output from the objective optimization model , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating a loss . 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 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 computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product for optimization of a continuous production process . The limitation of generate different prediction models based on the input data, wherein each of the different prediction models is configured to output a target prediction relating to the production equipment , 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 generate an objective optimization model based on each target prediction output from each of the different prediction models, wherein the objective optimization model comprises a deep neural network , 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 generate a loss function corresponding to the objective optimization model , 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 optimize a plurality of weights for a plurality of parameters of the different prediction models using backpropagation of the deep neural network and the loss function, resulting in a plurality of optimized weights for the parameters of the different prediction models , as drafted, is a process that, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers a mathematical concept. The limitation encompasses calculating parameter values . 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 program product, computer readable storage medium, program 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) – prediction models, objective optimization model, deep 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 receive input data comprising a plurality of datasets each including one or more variables relating to a production equipment involved in the continuous production process , which is simply acquiring 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 program product, computer readable storage medium, program instructions, processor amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) acquiring 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)) prediction models, objective optimization model, deep 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 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 computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product for optimization of a continuous production process . The limitation of split the datasets between a first group of datasets for training and a second group of datasets for testing , 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 define a problem type for each of the different prediction models , 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 select a machine-learning algorithm for training each of the different prediction models , 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 select one or more statistical measures for evaluating performance of each the different prediction models , 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. 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. 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) – machine-learning algorithm . 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 algorithm 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 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 computer program product, which is directed to an article of manufacture, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer program product for optimization of a continuous production process . The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 16 is applicable here since claim 8 carries out the computer program product of claim 1 6 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the datasets include different variables with different time ranges that correspond to the different prediction models . 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 19 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea