DETAILED ACTION 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. This action is in response to the original application filed on August 31 st , 2023. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. The analysis of the claims will follow the 2019 Revised Patent Subject Matter Eligibility Guidance, 84 Fed. Reg. 50 (“2019 PEG”). Claim 1 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Claim 1 , recites “A method comprising:” therefore it is directed to the statutory category of a process . Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites, inter alia: “ determining, using the first machine learning model, a scaling operation based on the input; ” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to evaluate data relating to scheduling policies and generate an opinion or judgment from that data . The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c). “ determining, using a second machine learning model, a first value indicating a performance of the first machine learning model based on the scaling operation and a second set of metrics obtained from the computing environment; ” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to use a computer as a tool to evaluate data and produce a judgement from that evaluation . The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c). “ determining an advantage value based on the first value and a second value representing a weighted accumulated reward value for a set of time steps; ” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to use a computer as a tool to evaluate the performance of a model and determine values to adjust a model . The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c). Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ providing an input to a first machine learning model, the input including a first set of metrics obtained from a computing environment supporting a queue-based service; ” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible. “ updating a set of parameters of the first machine learning model by at least performing backpropagation through a policy gradient using the advantage value; and ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). “ causing the scaling operation to be performed on the computing environment supporting the queue-based service. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ providing an input to a first machine learning model, the input including a first set of metrics obtained from a computing environment supporting a queue-based service; ” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)( i ); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. “ updating a set of parameters of the first machine learning model by at least performing backpropagation through a policy gradient using the advantage value; and ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). “ causing the scaling operation to be performed on the computing environment supporting the queue-based service. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 2 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A process, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein the first machine learning model is an actor network trained to generate scaling operations and the second machine learning model is a critic network trained to generate performance information associated with the first machine learning model based on a state of the computing environment after the scaling operation, where the state of the computing environment is indicated by the second set of metrics. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein the first machine learning model is an actor network trained to generate scaling operations and the second machine learning model is a critic network trained to generate performance information associated with the first machine learning model based on a state of the computing environment after the scaling operation, where the state of the computing environment is indicated by the second set of metrics. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 3 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A process, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein the first machine learning model and the second machine learning model further comprise a proximal policy optimization model. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein the first machine learning model and the second machine learning model further comprise a proximal policy optimization model. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 4 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A process, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein the set of metrics include at least one of a number of computing instances within the computing environment, a processor utilization of computing instances within the computing environment, a memory utilization of computing instances within the computing environment a number of requests obtained by the queue-based service, a queue length associated with the queue-based service, a status of queue-based service, and a number of discard requests the queue-based service. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein the set of metrics include at least one of a number of computing instances within the computing environment, a processor utilization of computing instances within the computing environment, a memory utilization of computing instances within the computing environment a number of requests obtained by the queue-based service, a queue length associated with the queue-based service, a status of queue-based service, and a number of discard requests the queue-based service. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 5 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A process, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein the weighted accumulated reward value for the set of time steps includes a reward value determined based on at least one of a number of processed requests, a number of computing instances within the computing environment, a number is discarded requests, a queue service unavailable penalty, a inaction reward, and a queue size penalty. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein the weighted accumulated reward value for the set of time steps includes a reward value determined based on at least one of a number of processed requests, a number of computing instances within the computing environment, a number is discarded requests, a queue service unavailable penalty, a inaction reward, and a queue size penalty. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 6 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A process, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein the set of metrics obtained from the computing environment supporting the queue-based service is simulated by a third machine learning model. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein the set of metrics obtained from the computing environment supporting the queue-based service is simulated by a third machine learning model. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 7 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A process, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein updating the set of parameters of the first machine learning model is preformed within a test environment distinct from the computing environment. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein updating the set of parameters of the first machine learning model is preformed within a test environment distinct from the computing environment. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 8 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Claim 8 , recites “A non-transitory computer-readable medium storing executable instructions embodied thereon, which, when executed by a processing device , cause the processing device to perform operations comprising:” therefore it is directed to the statutory category of a machine . Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites, inter alia: “ causing a policy machine learning model to generate a scaling decision associated with the set of computing instances based on the first input; ” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able us a computer a tool to evaluate data and make determine an action based on the evaluated data . The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c). “ determining a reward value based on the second state of the computing environment; and ” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to evaluate the actions taken by a model and provide an opinion or judgement to that evaluation . The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c). Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ obtaining a first input indicating a first state of a computing environment including a set of computing instances executing a service; ” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible. “ obtaining a second input indicating a second state of the computing environment including the set of computing instances executing the service as a result of implementing the scaling decision; ” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible. “ causing a value machine learning model to generate a first value indicating a performance of the policy machine learning model based on the second state of the computing environment; ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). “ causing a set of parameters of the policy machine learning model to be updated based on a result of performing backpropagation using the first value and the reward value. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ obtaining a first input indicating a first state of a computing environment including a set of computing instances executing a service; ” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)( i ); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. “ obtaining a second input indicating a second state of the computing environment including the set of computing instances executing the service as a result of implementing the scaling decision; ” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)( i ); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. “ causing a value machine learning model to generate a first value indicating a performance of the policy machine learning model based on the second state of the computing environment; ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). “ causing a set of parameters of the policy machine learning model to be updated based on a result of performing backpropagation using the first value and the reward value. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 9 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A machine, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein the scaling decision includes at least one of: increasing a number of computing instances of the set of computing instances, decreasing a number of computing instances the set of computing instances, modifying a configuration of a subset of computing instances of the set of computing instances, and modifying a network configuration associated with the subset of computing instances of the set of computing instances. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein the scaling decision includes at least one of: increasing a number of computing instances of the set of computing instances, decreasing a number of computing instances the set of computing instances, modifying a configuration of a subset of computing instances of the set of computing instances, and modifying a network configuration associated with the subset of computing instances of the set of computing instances. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 10 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A machine, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein determining the reward value further comprises determine an accumulated reward values based on a previous reward value determined based on a previous state of the computing environment and a previous scaling decision. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein determining the reward value further comprises determine an accumulated reward values based on a previous reward value determined based on a previous state of the computing environment and a previous scaling decision. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 11 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A machine, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein a weight value is applied to the previous reward value thereby causing the previous reward value to be reduced relative to an interval of time that has expired since the previous reward value was determined. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein a weight value is applied to the previous reward value thereby causing the previous reward value to be reduced relative to an interval of time that has expired since the previous reward value was determined. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 12 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A machine, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein the processing device further performs operations comprising: obtaining a third input indicating a third state of the computing environment; and ” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of the mental processes (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)) As such, the claim is ineligible. “ causing the policy machine learning model to generate a second scaling decision based on the third input without causing the value machine learning model to generate an output. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein the processing device further performs operations comprising: obtaining a third input indicating a third state of the computing environment; and ” is an insignificant extra-solution activity required for any uses of abstract ideas (see MPEP § 2106.05(g)), and is a well-understood, routine, conventional activity (see MPEP § 2106.05(d)( i ); “Receiving or transmitting data over a network, e.g., using the Internet to gather data”. “ causing the policy machine learning model to generate a second scaling decision based on the third input without causing the value machine learning model to generate an output. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 13 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A machine, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein backpropagation is performed through a policy gradient. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein backpropagation is performed through a policy gradient. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 14 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A machine, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein the computing environment is simulated. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein the computing environment is simulated. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 15 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A machine, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein determining the reward value further comprises computing the reward value as a function of a number of processed requests, a number of pending requests in a queue associated with the service, a first penalty associated with the service being unavailable, and a second penalty associated with the number of pending requests in the queue associated with the service. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein determining the reward value further comprises computing the reward value as a function of a number of processed requests, a number of pending requests in a queue associated with the service, a first penalty associated with the service being unavailable, and a second penalty associated with the number of pending requests in the queue associated with the service. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 16 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? Claim 16 , recites “A system comprising: a memory component ; and a processing device coupled to the memory component , the processing device to perform operations comprising:” therefore it is directed to the statutory category of a machine . Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites, inter alia: “ determining, by a first machine learning model, a scaling operation based on a first state of a computing environment executing a service; ” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to use a computer as a tool to evaluate data from the environment and provide a judgement or opinion based on that evaluation . The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c). “ determining, by a second machine learning model, an estimated value associated with a second state of the computing environment after the scaling operation is performed; and ” Under its broadest reasonable interpretation in light of the specification, this limitation encompasses the mental process of evaluating and observing data, which is an evaluation or observation that is practically capable of being performed in the human mind with the assistance of pen and paper. A human is able to use a computer as a tool to evaluate data from environment and provide an opinion or judgment of the actions taken or evaluated . The limitation is merely applying an abstract idea on generic computer system. See MPEP 2106.04(a)(2)(III)(c). Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ causing the scaling operation to be performed on the computing environment; ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). “ causing the first machine learning model to adjust a set of parameters of the first machine learning model to maximize an advantage value determined based on the estimated value and a reward value determined based on the second state of the computing environment. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ causing the scaling operation to be performed on the computing environment; ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). “ causing the first machine learning model to adjust a set of parameters of the first machine learning model to maximize an advantage value determined based on the estimated value and a reward value determined based on the second state of the computing environment. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 17 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A machine, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein causing the first machine learning model to adjust the set of parameters further comprises performing backpropagation through a policy gradient using the advantage value. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein causing the first machine learning model to adjust the set of parameters further comprises performing backpropagation through a policy gradient using the advantage value. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 18 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A machine, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein the reward value further comprises an accumulated weight value determined based at least in part on a set of metrics obtained from the computing environment over an interval of time. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein the reward value further comprises an accumulated weight value determined based at least in part on a set of metrics obtained from the computing environment over an interval of time. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 19 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A machine, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites the abstract ideas of the preceding claims from which it depends. Step 2A Prong 2 – Does the claim recite additional elements that integrate the judicial exception into a practical application? The claim recites the additional elements, “ wherein the scaling operation includes at least one of: increasing a number of computing instances, decreasing a number of computing instances, and modifying a configuration of a computing instance, modifying a network configuration associated with the computing environment. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Step 2B – Does the claim recite additional elements that amount to significantly more than the judicial exception? Finally, the claim taken as a whole does not contain an inventive concept which provides significantly more than the abstract idea. The additional elements, “ wherein the scaling operation includes at least one of: increasing a number of computing instances, decreasing a number of computing instances, and modifying a configuration of a computing instance, modifying a network configuration associated with the computing environment. ” amounts to generic computer components used as a tool to perform an existing process. Thus, the additional element amounts to no more than a recitation of the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) or are more than mere instructions to implement an abstract idea or other exception on a computer (see MPEP § 2106.05(f)). Taken alone or in combination, the additional elements of the claim do not provide an inventive concept and thus the claim is subject-matter ineligible. Claim 20 Step 1 – Is the claim to a process, machine, manufacture or composition of matter? A machine, as above. Step 2A Prong 1 – Does the claim recite an abstract idea, law of nature, or natural phenomenon? The claim recites