CTNF 18/463,240 CTNF 94181 DETAILED ACTION This action is in response to the Applicant Response filed 07 September 2023 for application 18/463,240 filed 07 September 2023. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are pending. Claim(s) 1-20 is/are rejected. Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 07-03-aia AIA 15-10-aia 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 07-04-01 AIA 07-04 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) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The limitation of defining an environment for a reinforcement learning architecture that includes a neural network as at least part of an agent , 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 actions of the neural network from a set of the instructions and parameters combinations associated with the quantum hardware design kit , 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 reward function for generation of the policy , 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. Accordingly, 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) – quantum devices, quantum hardware design kit, instructions . The 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) – reinforcement learning architecture, neural network . The 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 generating the policy by training the neural network using the environment which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (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) of: quantum devices, quantum hardware design kit, instructions amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) reinforcement learning architecture, 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) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 2 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the defining the environment includes receiving quantum device architecture, and the reward function is configured to optimize the parameters for the quantum device architecture . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein the defining the environment includes receiving quantum device architecture , which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim recites the reward function is configured to optimize the parameters for the quantum device architecture which is simply additional information regarding the reward function, 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: receiving 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)) additional information regarding the reward function do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 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) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. 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 reward function is configured to reward completion of a design of a quantum device . 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 reward function 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 reward function 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) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The limitation of wherein the reward function is changed during the generating the policy , 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. Accordingly, 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) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 1 is applicable here since claim 5 carries out the method of claim 1 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the environment includes, separate from the quantum hardware design kit, a third-party library of predefined quantum components . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein the environment includes, separate from the quantum hardware design kit, a third-party library of predefined quantum components which is simply additional information regarding the environment, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – third-party library of predefined quantum components . The 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)). 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: third-party library of predefined quantum components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) additional information regarding the environment do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 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) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The limitation of wherein the defining the environment includes defining physical constraints of a quantum device , 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. Accordingly, 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) – quantum device . The 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)). 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: quantum device amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 7 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 7 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The limitation of ... generate values associated with the reward function , 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. Accordingly, 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) – second neural network . The 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) of: second 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 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 computer hardware system, which is directed to a machine, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) computer hardware system for generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The limitation of defining an environment for a reinforcement learning architecture that includes a neural network as at least part of an agent , 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 actions of the neural network from a set of the instructions and parameters combinations associated with the quantum hardware design kit , 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 reward function for generation of the policy , 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. Accordingly, 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 hardware system, quantum devices, quantum hardware design kit, instructions, hardware processor . The 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) – reinforcement learning architecture, neural network . The 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 generating the policy by training the neural network using the environment which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (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) of: computer hardware system, quantum devices, quantum hardware design kit, instructions, hardware processor amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) reinforcement learning architecture, 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 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 method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 9 carries out the system of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the defining the environment includes receiving quantum device architecture, and the reward function is configured to optimize the parameters for the quantum device architecture . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein the defining the environment includes receiving quantum device architecture , which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim recites the reward function is configured to optimize the parameters for the quantum device architecture which is simply additional information regarding the reward function, 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: receiving 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)) additional information regarding the reward function do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 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 method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 10 carries out the system of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the reward function is configured to reward completion of a design of a quantum device . 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 reward function 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 reward function 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 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 method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The limitation of wherein the reward function is changed during the generating the policy , 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. Accordingly, 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 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 method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 8 is applicable here since claim 12 carries out the system of claim 8 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the environment includes, separate from the quantum hardware design kit, a third-party library of predefined quantum components . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein the environment includes, separate from the quantum hardware design kit, a third-party library of predefined quantum components which is simply additional information regarding the environment, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – third-party library of predefined quantum components . The 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)). 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: third-party library of predefined quantum components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) additional information regarding the environment do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 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 method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The limitation of wherein the defining the environment includes defining physical constraints of a quantum device , 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. Accordingly, 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) – quantum device . The 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)). 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: quantum device amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 14 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 14 is directed to a method, which is directed to a process, one of the statutory categories. Step 2A Prong One Analysis: The claim recites a(n) method of generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The limitation of ... generate values associated with the reward function , 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. Accordingly, 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) – second neural network . The 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) of: second 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 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 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 generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The limitation of defining an environment for a reinforcement learning architecture that includes a neural network as at least part of an agent , 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 actions of the neural network from a set of the instructions and parameters combinations associated with the quantum hardware design kit , 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 reward function for generation of the policy , 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. Accordingly, 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 code, quantum hardware design kit, instructions, computer hardware system . The 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) – reinforcement learning architecture, neural network . The 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 generating the policy by training the neural network using the environment which is simply generic training to perform the abstract idea of model generation and amounts to mere instructions to apply the exception (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) of: computer program product, computer readable storage medium, program code, quantum hardware design kit, instructions, computer hardware system amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) generic training to perform the abstract idea amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception (MPEP 2106.05(f)) reinforcement learning architecture, neural network amount(s) to no more than indicating a field of use or technological environment in which to apply the judicial exception (MPEP 2106.05(h)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 16 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 16 is directed to a 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 generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 15 is applicable here since claim 16 carries out the computer program product of claim 15 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the defining the environment includes receiving quantum device architecture, and the reward function is configured to optimize the parameters for the quantum device architecture . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein the defining the environment includes receiving quantum device architecture , which is simply receiving data recited at a high level of generality. This is nothing more than insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP 2106.05(g)). The claim recites the reward function is configured to optimize the parameters for the quantum device architecture which is simply additional information regarding the reward function, 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: receiving 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)) additional information regarding the reward function do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 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 generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 15 is applicable here since claim 17 carries out the computer program product of claim 15 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the reward function is configured to reward completion of a design of a quantum device . 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 reward function 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 reward function 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 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 generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The limitation of wherein the reward function is changed during the generating the policy , 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. Accordingly, 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 19 , the claim is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to an abstract idea without significantly more. Step 1 Analysis: Claim 19 is directed to a 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 generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The Step 2A Prong One Analysis for claim 15 is applicable here since claim 19 carries out the computer program product of claim 15 but for the recitation of additional element(s) of wherein the environment includes, separate from the quantum hardware design kit, a third-party library of predefined quantum components . Step 2A Prong Two Analysis: With respect to the abstract idea, the judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application. The claim recites wherein the environment includes, separate from the quantum hardware design kit, a third-party library of predefined quantum components which is simply additional information regarding the environment, and the element(s) do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)). The claim recites additional element(s) – third-party library of predefined quantum components . The 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)). 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: third-party library of predefined quantum components amount(s) to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using generic computer components (MPEP 2106.05(b)) additional information regarding the environment do(es) not apply the exception in a meaningful way (MPEP 2106.05(e)) The additional element(s) do(es) not provide an inventive concept, and, therefore, the claim is not patent eligible. Regarding claim 20 , 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 20 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 generating a policy for design of quantum devices. The limitation of wherein the defining the environment includes defining physical constraints of a quantum device , 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. Accordingly, 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) – quantum device . The 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 co