DETAILED ACTION 1. Claims 1-7 are currently pending. The effective filing date of the present application is 2/25/2021 . Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status 2. 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 3. 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. 4. Claims 1- 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed a judicial exception (i.e., an abstract idea) without significantly more . Step 1 – Statutory Categories As indicated in the preamble of the claim, the examiner finds the claim is directed to a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter. Claim 6 is processes (methods) , and c laims 1-5 and 7 are machines (systems or devices) . Step 2A – Prong 1: was there a Judicial Exception Recited Claim 1 (similarly claims 6 and 7 ) recites the following bolded abstract concepts that are found to include “abstract idea”: 1. (Currently Amended) An inference device comprising: a memory configured to store instructions; and one or more processors configured to execute the instructions to: receive an observation as an input ( observation ) ; generate hypothesis candidates by applying inference knowledge to the observation in a backward direction ( evaluation ) ; convert the hypothesis candidates to an ILP problem or a SAT problem ( judgment ) ; generate a specified number of equivalent ILP problems or equivalent SAT problems in which an order of variables included in the converted ILP problem or the converted SAT problem is changed (evaluat ion ) ; solve the equivalent ILP problems or the equivalent SAT problems by executing the specified number of identical ILP solvers or SAT solvers in parallel ( judgment ) ; and output a result of the ILP solver or the SAT solver that outputs the result first, among the ILP solvers or the SAT solvers of the specified number, as an optimal solution (opinion) . Claim 1 (similarly claims 6 and 7 ) is directed to a series of steps abductive reasoning by solving an ILP problem or a SAT problem obtained by converting hypothesis candidates in the shortest possible time , which is a mathematical concepts (mathematical calculations such as converting, equivalence, solving, etc.) and thus grouped as a certain method of organizing human interactions and/or a mental process (see above notations) . Thus, the claim recites an abstract idea. See MPEP §2106.4(a). Step 2A – Prong 2: Can the Judicial Exception Recited be integrated into a practical application Limitations that are indicative of integration into a practical application: Improvements to the functioning of a computer, or to any other technology or technical field - see MPEP 2106.05(a) Applying or using a judicial exception to effect a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition – see Vanda Memo Applying the judicial exception with, or by use of, a particular machine - see MPEP 2106.05(b) Effecting a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing - see MPEP 2106.05(c) Applying or using the judicial exception in some other meaningful way beyond generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment, such that the claim as a whole is more than a drafting effort designed to monopolize the exception - see MPEP 2106.05(e) and Vanda Memo Limitations that are not indicative of integration into a practical application: Adding the words “apply it” (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely uses a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea - see MPEP 2106.05(f) Adding insignificant extra-solution activity to the judicial exception - see MPEP 2106.05(g) Generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use – see MPEP 2106.05(h) This judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the memory, processors , computer and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium are merely generically recited computer elements that do not add a meaningful limitation to the abstract idea because they amount to simply the abstract idea on a generic computer. Accordingly, alone and in combination, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because it does not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea . The claim is directed to an abstract idea. Step 2B – Significantly More Analysis The claim(s) does/do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because, when considered separately and in combination the memory, processors, computer and non-transitory computer-readable recording medium amounts to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using a generic computer component. Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. Th us, claim s 1, 6 , and 7 are not patent eligible. Dependent c laims 2- 5 fail to provide additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception. Therefore , c laims 2- 5 are rejected for the same reasons as stated in the rejection from independent claim from which they depend. Allowable Subject Matter 6. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: The reason for allowable subject matter of claims 1-7 in the instant application is because the prior art of record fails to teach the overall combination as claimed. Therefore, it would not have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art to modify the prior art to meet the combination above without unequivocal hindsight and one of ordinary skill would have no reason to do so. The nearest art does not teach generating the specified number of equivalent ILP problems or equivalent SAT problems by changing the orders of variables included in a converted ILP problem or SAT problem, executing the specified number of identical ILP solvers or SAT solvers in parallel, and solving the generated equivalent ILP problems or equivalent SAT problems. The nearest art teaches: Yoichi (WO 2020/03585) describes a method comprising: generating a hypothesis candidate by applying inferential knowledge in a backward direction; converting the hypothesis candidate into an SAT problem or an ILP problem; and solving the converted SAT problem or ILP problem by executing a solver. Yoshikatsu (JP 2015-032159) describes a method comprising: converting constraint conditions into logical expressions, inputting the logical expressions into solvers, and searching for solutions in parallel; and adopting, as a solution, a result of one of the solvers that has most quickly outputted the result. Upon further searching the examiner could not identify any prior art to teach these limitations. The prior art on record, alone or in combination, neither anticipates, reasonably teaches, not renders obvious the Applicant' s claimed invention. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See Notice of References Cited, PTO form 892. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT MICHAEL JARED WALKER whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (303)297-4407 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 9:00 AM -5:00 PM CT . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Fahd Obeid can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)270-3324 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /MICHAEL JARED WALKER/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3627 Michael.walker@uspto.gov