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. Restriction/Election Applicant’s election without traverse of Group I (claims 1- 20 ) in the reply filed 12 /1 9 /202 5 is acknowledged. Claims 21-25 are withdrawn from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b) as being drawn to a nonelected invention, and there being no allowable generic or linking claim. Election was made without traverse in the reply filed on 12 /1 9 /202 5 . Claim Status Claims 1-25 are currently pending. Claims 21-25 are withdrawn by Applicant as discussed above. Claims 1-20 are herein under examination. Claims 1-20 are rejected. Claims 3, 5 and 13 are objected. Priority The instant application claims domestic benefit to U.S. Provisional Application No. 63 / 374 , 535 filed 09/03/2022 . The claims to domestic benefit are acknowledged for claims 1-20 . As such, the effective filing date for claims 1-20 is 09/03/2022 . Information Disclosure Statement The IDS filed 08 / 19 /202 4 follow s the provisions of 37 CFR 1.97 and has been considered in full. A signed copy of the list of references cited from this IDS is included with this Office Action. Drawings The drawings are objected to as failing to comply with 37 CFR 1.84(p)(5) because they include the following reference character(s) not mentioned in the description: S210 in Figure 2. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d), or amendment to the specification to add the reference character(s) in the description in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(b) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Objections Claims 3, 5 and 13 are objected to because of the following informalities: Claim 3 contains semicolons that should be replaced with commas. Claim 5 should have a common after “copy number variation analysis”. Claim 13, line 5, recites the initialism “spp . ” which should be spelled out. Appropriate correction is required. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 35 USC 112(b) The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claims 2, 4, 8, 14 , 16 and 18-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being indefinite for failing to particularly point out and distinctly claim the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor (or for applications subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, the applicant), regards as the invention. Claim 2 recites “the plant” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which plant is being referenced because claim 1 recites “one or more plants” in both lines 2 and 4. To overcome this rejection, clarify which plant is being referenced. Claim 8 recites “government / regulatory agency” which renders the clam indefinite. It is unclear if “/” means “and/or” or just “or”. To overcome this rejection, clarify the meaning of “/”. Claim 16 recites the relative phrase “distant relative” , which renders the claim indefinite. The term “ distant ” is not defined by the claim, the specification does not provide a standard for ascertaining the requisite degree, and one of ordinary skill in the art would not be reasonably apprised of the scope of the invention. The metes and bounds of a distant relative as opposed to, for example, a close relative is unclear. To overcome this rejection, clarify the metes and bounds of what constitutes a distant relative. Claim 18 recites “the genotypic data” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which genotypic data is being referenced because claim 17 recites “genotypic data from the plant” and “one or more databases of genotypic data”. To overcome this rejection, clarify which genotypic data is being referenced. Claim 19 recites “the genotypic data” which renders the claim indefinite. It is unclear which genotypic data is being referenced because claim 17 recites “genotypic data from the plant” and “one or more databases of genotypic data”. To overcome this rejection, clarify which genotypic data is being referenced. Claim 19 is indefinite because it is unclear if the claim requires an active step of evaluating, or if it recites an intended use as indicated by “is used to evaluate”. For examination purposes, this claim is being interpreted as requir ing an active step of evaluating. To overcome this rejection, clarify if the claim should require an active step. Claim 20 is indefinite because it does not recite a coordinating conjunction such as “ and ” or “ or ” . It’s unclear whether the claim requires only one of the listed identifications, all of the identifications, or combinations thereof. For examination purposes, this claim is being interpreted to mean only one of the listed identifications is required. To overcome this rejection, clarify how the claim should be interpreted. 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. Step 1: Step 1 asks whether the claims recite statutory subject matter . In the instant application, claims 1-12 recite a method, claims 13-16 recite a method, and claims 17-20 recite a method . As such, these claims recite statutory subject matter ( Step 1: YES ) . Step 2A, Prong 1 : Claims that recite statutory subject matter are analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 1 to determine if they recite any concepts that equate to an abstract idea, law of nature or natural phenomena. The instant claims recite the following limitations that equate to one or more categories of judicial exception: Claim 1 recites “ obtaining phenotypic data from one or more plants or plant parts from the cultivar; and/or obtaining genotypic data from one or more plants or plant parts from the cultivar; and assigning a cultivar designation based on the phenotypic data and/or the genotypic data, thereby identifying the cultivar. ” Claim 3 recites “ wherein the phenotypic data comprises leaf size; plant size; flower; growth profile; fiber density, tensile strength, biofuel efficiency, ph y toremediation use, nutritive potential, nutrient content, and/or ionomics . ” Claim 5 recites “ wherein the genotypic data comprises genetic analysis, transcriptional analysis, translational analysis, copy number variation analysis metabolomics analysis, proteomic analysis, epigenetic analysis, or combinations thereof. ” Claim 6 recites “ further comprising determining genetic relationship information from the genotypic data. ” Claim 9 recites “ further comprising providing, characterizing, confirming or denying breeding information. ” Claim 10 recites “ further comprising providing, characterizing, confirming or denying ancestry information. ” Claim 11 recites “ further comprising providing, characterizing, confirming or denying cultivar identity information. ” Claim 12 recites “ further comprising providing, characterizing, confirming or denying supply chain information. ” Claim 13 recites “ obtaining genotypic data from the plant or portion thereof; and comparing the genotypic data obtained from the plant or portion thereof to reference genotypic data for Cannabis spp., thereby identifying the Cannabis plant or portion thereof. ” Claim 15 recites “ further comprising validating or certifying the identity of the Cannabis plant or portion thereof. ” Claim 16 recites “ further comprising determining if the Cannabis plant is clonal, a sibling, or a distant relative with respect to a reference plant or reference plant material. ” Claim 17 recites “ obtaining genotypic data from the plant; and comparing the genotypic data from the plant to one or more databases of genotypic data, thereby identifying the Cannabis plant. ” Claim 19 recites “ wherein the genotypic data is used to evaluate heterozygosity, genetic distance, and/or uniqueness. ” Claim 20 recites “ wherein the identifying comprises identification of most likely cultivar, identification of most closely related cultivar with genetic similarities of certain features or attributes, identification of least closely related cultivar with genetic similarities of certain features or attributes. ” Limitations reciting a mental process . Claims 1, 6, 10-13, 15-17 and 19-20 contain limitations recited at such a high level of generality that they equate to a mental process because they are similar to the concepts of collecting information, analyzing it, and displaying certain results of the collection and analysis in Electric Power Group, LLC, v. Alstom (830 F.3d 1350, 119 USPQ2d 1739 (Fed. Cir. 2016)), which the courts have identified as concepts that can be practically performed in the human mind. The paragraphs below discuss the broadest reasonable interpretation (BRI) of the limitations in these claims that recite a mental process. Regarding claims 1, 13 and 17, obtaining phenotypic / genotypic data includes collecting data. Assigning a cultivar designation based on phenotypic/genomic data includes analyzing data and making a mental determination . Comparing genotypic data includes analyzing data. Identifying the cultivar includes making a mental determination. Regarding claims 6, 9-12, 15-16 determining/confirming/denying information, validating identity, and determin ing a plant as a sibling includes analyzing data and making mental determinations. Regarding claim 19, evaluating uniqueness includes determining that a variant is rare or common. Regarding claim 20, identifying includes comparing genetic data between plants which is a mental process. Limitations included in the recited judicial exception . The limitations in claims 3 and 5 are included in the judicial exception in claim 1 of obtaining phenotypic/genotypic data because it further limits the type of data being collected. A s such, claims 1-20 recite an abstract idea ( Step 2A, Prong 1: YES ). Additional Elements : Once limitations have been identified that recite a judicial exception, the claims are evaluated for additional elements. The additional elements are then analyzed under Step 2A, Prong 2 then Step 2B . The instant claims recite the following additional elements : Claim 2 recites “ wherein the phenotypic data is in a digital form of the plant or a portion thereof. ” Claim 4 recites “ wherein the genotypic data is obtained using polymerase chain reaction (PCR), next generation sequencing (NGS), restriction site associated DNA sequencing ( RADseq ), long read sequencing, nanopore long read sequencing, Sanger sequencing, restriction fragment length polymorphism (RFLP) analysis, oligonucleotide probes SNP chip array, microarray, and combinations thereof. ” Claim 7 recites “ further comprising transmitting the assigned cultivar designation to a requester or recipient. ” Claim 8 recites “ wherein the requester or recipient is a grower, a government / regulatory agency, a dispensary, an individual, law enforcement, a researcher, a company, or a breeder. ” Claim 14 recites “ wherein the genotypic data is obtained by sequencing genomic DNA from the plant or portion thereof .” Claim 18 recites “ wherein the genotypic data is obtained by sequencing genomic DNA from the plant or portion thereof. ” These above recited additional elements are analyzed below under both Step 2A, Prong 2 and Step 2B : Step 2A, Prong 2 : Claims found to recite a judicial exception under Step 2A, Prong 1 are then further analyzed to determine if the claims as a whole integrate the recited judicial exception into a practical application or not ( Step 2A, Prong 2). The judicial exception is not integrated into a practical application because the claims do not recite additional elements that reflect an improvement to a computer, technology , or technical field (MPEP § 2106.04(d)(1) and 2106.5(a) ) , require a particular treatment or prophylaxis for a disease or medical condition ( MPEP § 2106.04(d)( 2)), implement the recited judicial exception with a particular machine that is integral to the claim ( MPEP § 2106.0 5 ( b)), effect a transformation or reduction of a particular article to a different state or thing ( MPEP § 2106.0 5 ( c)), nor provide some other meaningful limitation ( MPEP § 2106.05(e) ) . Rather, the claims include limitations that equate to an equivalent of the words “apply it” and/or to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and to insignificant extra-solution activity (MPEP § 2106.05(g)) . The paragraphs below discuss the additional elements recited above in the instant claims. Regarding claim s 2 and 7, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “in digital form” and “transmitting” includes these claims being performed by a generic computer. Therefore, these limitations equate to mere instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computer, which the courts have established does not render an abstract idea eligible in Alice Corp . 573 U.S. at 223, 110 USPQ2d at 1983. Additionally, they invok e a computer as a tool to perform an existing process such as receiving, storing, or transmitting data (MPEP 2106.05(f)(2)). Regarding claim s 2, 4 , 14 and 18, these limitations equate to insignificant extra-solution activity of necessary data gathering because they gather data necessary to perform the judicial exceptions in claims 1, 13 and 17. Regarding claims 7-8, these limitations equate to insignificant extra-solution activity of necessary data outputting because they outpu t the result of the judicial exception in claim 1 of “assigning a cultivar designation.” As such, claims 1-20 are directed to an abstract idea ( Step 2A, Prong 2: N O ). Step 2B : Claims found to be directed to a judicial exception are then further evaluated to determine if the claims recite an inventive concept that provides significantly more than the judicial exception itself ( Step 2B ). These claims do not include additional elements that are sufficient to amount to significantly more than the judicial exception because these claims recite additional elements that equate to instructions to apply the recited exception in a generic way and/or in a generic computing environment (MPEP § 2106.05(f)) and to well-understood, routine and conventional (WURC) limitations (MPEP § 2106.05(d)). The paragraphs below discuss the additional elements recited above in the instant claims. Regarding claims 2 and 7, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “in digital form” and “transmitting” includes these claims being performed by a generic computer. Therefore, these limitations equate to instructions to implement an abstract idea on a generic computing environment, which the courts have established does not provide an inventive concept in Intellectual Ventures I LLC v. Capital One Bank (USA), 792 F.3d 1363, 1367, 115 USPQ2d 1636, 1639 (Fed. Cir. 2015). Regarding claims 2 and 7, the broadest reasonable interpretation of “in digital form” and “transmitting” includes these claims being performed by a generic computer . Thus, claims 2 and 7 equate to receiving/transmitting data over a network, which the courts have established as WURC limitation of a generic computer in buySAFE , Inc. v. Google, Inc ., 765 F.3d 1350, 1355, 112 USPQ2d 1093, 1096 (Fed. Cir. 2014). Claim 8 also equates to transmitting/receiving data over a network because it further limits where the data is being transmitted . Regarding the above cited additional elements in claims 2, 4, 7-8, 14 and 18 when viewed in combination, these limitations equate to WURC limitations as taught by Vergara et al. (“Vergara”; Critical Reviews in Plant Sciences 35, no. 5-6 (2016): 364-377 ) . Vergara review s genetic and genomic tools for Cannabis sativa (title). Six whole-genome assemblies are publicly available, using Illumina and Roche 454 sequencers (pg. 3, sec. II.A) (Table 1) . The assemblies were assembled using computer software such as SOAPdenovo and Newbler (pg. 3, sec. II.A), indicating that sequencing genomic DNA of Cannabis is WURC in combination with generic computer functions. When these additional elements are considered individually and in combination, they do not provide an inventive concept because they equate to WURC functions/components of a generic computer in combination with sequencing genomic DNA of Cannabis as taught above by Vergara . Therefore, these additional elements do not transform the claimed judicial exception into a patent-eligible application of the judicial exception and do not amount to significantly more than the judicial exception itself ( Step 2B: No ). As such, claims 1-20 are not patent eligible. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale , or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1-7, 9- 11, 13- 15 and 17-20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) and 102(a)(2) as being anticipated by Sawler et al. (“ Sawler ”; US 11 , 312 , 988 B2 ). The bold and italicized text below are the limitations of the instant claims, and the italicized text serves to map the prior art onto the instant claims. Claims 1, 13 and 17 : (claim 1): obtaining phenotypic data from one or more plants or plant parts from the cultivar; This limitation is optional and is thus not required by the claim. See MPEP 2111.04(I). (claim 13): obtaining genotypic data from the plant or portion thereof ; (claim 17): obtaining genotypic data from the plant ; Sawler determin es if a cannabis cultivar sample comprises hemp, marijuana, Cannabis sativa, or Cannabis indica (abstract) (col. 2, lines 23-26) (Figure 1a) (col. 18, lines 3-5). Genomic DNA acquired from a cannabis test sample is genotyped (claim 1, steps I-II). The cannabis test sample may be a leaf sample (claim 1, step V). (claim 1): assigning a cultivar designation based on the phenotypic data and/or the genotypic data, thereby identifying the cultivar. (claim 13): comparing the genotypic data obtained from the plant or portion thereof to reference genotypic data for Cannabis spp., thereby identifying the Cannabis plant or portion. (claim 17): comparing the genotypic data from the plant to one or more databases of genotypic data, thereby identifying the Cannabis plant . Sawler recites “ determining the sample is hemp or marijuana according to the set of SNPs … wherein the test sample is determined to be hemp if the major alleles and/or minor alleles in combination when compared to the reference profiles provided in Table 5 are most similar to major alleles and/or minor alleles more commonly found in hemp ” (claim 1, step IV). Sawler recites “ If the target alleles in combination when compared to a database of cannabis reference strains and/or the reference profiles provided in Table 4 and 8 are most similar to alleles more commonly found in Cannabis sativa , for example if greater than 50% of the cannabis sample's SNPs are alleles more commonly present in Cannabis sativa , the cannabis sample is identified as Cannabis sativa dominant ” (col. 10, lines 34-40). Sawler recites “ Ancestry analysis can determine if the cannabis sample is a ‘pure’ descendant of a reference sample or reference profile or if it is the result of interbreeding between individuals from two different populations, i.e. an admixed individual or ‘intraspecific hybrid ” (col. 20, lines 1-5). The reference sample/profile can be of a specific cultivar/strain of sativa or indica (col. 3, lines 46-48) (col. 3, lines 58-65) . Table 2 gives genotypes of specific sativa and indica strains. Thus, the ancestry analysis can identify a cannabis sample as a specific cultivar/strain. The references profiles /strains contain SNP allele identities of a species are stored in a database (col. 12, lines 51-63). Claim s 2- 3 : Claims 2-3 are contingent limitations and thus are not required by the claim. They are only required when the phenotypic data is chosen in claim 1. See MPEP 2111.04(II) regarding contingent limitations. These claims are rejected for the dependency on rejected claim 1. Claims 4-5, 14 and 18 : Genotyping is performed with PCR (claim 3), genotyping by sequencing (col. 8, lines 50-52), or sequencing by ligation (col. 9, lines 1-6). The broadest reasonable interpretation of a genotyp e includes it being a “genetic analysis”. Claim s 6 and 10 -11 : Sawler discloses measuring genetic /ancestral relatedness ( characterizing genetic relationship, ancestry, and cultivar identity information ) of a cannabis sample to a Cannabis sativa reference and/or a Cannabis indica reference , wherein SNPs of the cannabis sample are compared to the reference profile alleles stored in the database (col. 6, lines 63-67) (col. 12, lines 26-45). The cannabis plants are cultivars (col. 17, col. 6-14) (col 18, lines 1-6) (Figure 1a). Claim 7 : Sawler recites “ displaying and/or providing a document displaying the calculated genetic relatedness of the test sample ” (col. 12, lines 44-45) and recites the “ document can be an electronic document that is provided to a third party ” ( a recipient ) (col. 10, lines 20-21). Claim 9 : Sawler recites “ The ancestry estimates can be used for example to identify Sativa- or Indica-type breeding individuals when classification is unknown or unsure ” ( characterizing breeding information ) (col. 11, lines 36-38). Claim 19 : SNPs were genotyped from the cannabis test sample, wherein each SNP contained a minor allele (claim 1, step, II). The term “minor allele” is defined as the allele least commonly present in a population , e.g. C. sativa and C. indica or marijuana and hemp ( uniqueness ) (col. 5, lines 50-52) . The minor allele listed in Tables 4, 5 and 8 is present in the frequency indicated therein. Claim 20 : Sawler recites “ An ancestry contribution estimate can identify a population structure that is associated or is most likely given the nucleotide occurrences of the SNPs in the cannabis sample ” (col. 10, lines 56-58). The equation used for ancestry calculates a likelihood (Example 5, col. 19-20) ( identification of most likely cultivar ) ( identification of most closely related cultivar with genetic similarities of certain features or attributes ) . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. The text of those sections of Title 35, U.S. Code not included in this action can be found in a prior Office action. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness . This application currently names joint inventors. In considering patentability of the claims the examiner presumes that the subject matter of the various claims was commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the claimed invention(s) absent any evidence to the contrary. Applicant is advised of the obligation under 37 CFR 1.56 to point out the inventor and effective filing dates of each claim that was not commonly owned as of the effective filing date of the later invention in order for the examiner to consider the applicability of 35 U.S.C. 102(b)(2)(C) for any potential 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(2) prior art against the later invention. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 USC 103 for being unpatentable over Sawler et al. (“ Sawler ”; US 11 , 312 , 988 B2 ) . The limitations of claim s 1 and 7 have been taught above by Sawler in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 . Claim 8 : Sawler teaches “ Genetic markers distributed across the genome can be used to provide an estimate of the ancestry proportions, and the breeder can then select the offspring with the highest proportion of cultivated ancestry ” ( col. 11, lines 57-59 ). Sawler also teaches “ displaying and/or providing a document displaying the calculated genetic relatedness of the test sample ” (col. 12, lines 44-45) and “the document can be an electronic document that is provided to a third party ” (col. 10, lines 20-21). However, Sawler does not teach that the “third party” is a breeder. I t would have been prima facie obvious to have a breeder receive the document containing cultivated ancestry for use in selecting strains for breeding , as taught by Sawler . There would have been a reasonable expectation of success to have a breeder receive the document because Sawler teaches that a third party is capable of receiving it. Claim s 12 and 16 are rejected under 35 USC 103 for being unpatentable over Sawler et al. (“ Sawler ”; US 11 , 312 , 988 B2 ) in view of Alghanim et al. (“ Alghanim ”; Analytical and Bioanalytical Chemistry 376, no. 8 (2003): 1225-1233 ). The limitations of claim 1 and 13 have been taught above by Sawler in Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 . Claim s 12 and 16 : Sawler recites “ Ancestry analysis can determine if the cannabis sample is a ‘pure’ descendant of a reference sample or reference profile or if it is the result of interbreeding between individuals from two different populations ” ( Cannabis plant … relative with respect to a reference plant or reference plant material ) (col. 20, lines 1-5). The reference sample/profile can be of a specific cultivar/strain of sativa or indica (col. 3, lines 46-48) (col. 3, lines 58-65). Table 2 gives genotypes of specific sativa and indica strains. However, Sawler does not characterize supply chain information or determine if a cannabis sample is a clone. Alghanim teaches that many breeders clone their cultivars , resulting in identical DNA profiles. These identical DNA profiles can be used to determine where plant material originated. This is helpful for assessing plant distribution, aid ing law enforcement in drug eradication efforts , and forensic applications such as associat ing a leaf found on a suspect to plant material found in a crime scene or to link an anonymous growing operation (i.e. marijuana cultivated in a particular field) to material found in a suspect’s possession (pg. 1231, col. 2, last para. – pg. 1232, col. 1, para. 1). It would have been prima facie obvious to have used the reference database of Sawler to determine if a cannabis sample is a clone and determine where the sample originated because it has applications in plant distribution, forensics and law enforcement as taught by Alghanim . There would have been a reasonable expectation of success because Sawler provides a database of genetic information from specific strains which could be used to assess clonal identity by comparing genetic profiles and plant origin . Conclusion No claims are allowed . Notable, but not relied upon, prior art includes: Hillig ( A systematic investigation of Cannabis . Indiana University, 2005 ) investigates evolutionary and taxonomic relationship within the Cannabis genus by assessing genetic, morphological, and chemotaxonomic analysis (abstract on pg. vi). Jin et al. ( Plos one 16, no. 6 (2021): e0253387 ) classifies cannabis strains using SNPs (title) and recites “ identified genetic markers can be used as genomic fingerprints in combination with chemical fingerprints and morphological characteristics for strain identification ” (pg. 11, last para) . Schwabe et al. ( Journal of Cannabis Research 1, no. 1 (2019): 3 ) compares genotypes of the same strain (pg. 13, col. 2, para. 2). Wulf et al. ( WO 2019 / 138244 A1 ) associating a phenotype with genes in a database (abstract). Abrams ( WO 2017 / 205853 A1 ) chemotypes Cannabis and classifies subspecies based on genotypes or phenotypes to compare to reference data sets (pg. 4, para. 1). Boschi ( WO 2018 / 072845 A1 ) genetic markers for distinguishing phenotypes of cannabis (abstract). Inquiries Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT Noah A. Auger whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (703)756-4518 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F 7:30-4:30 EST . 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 Karlheinz Skowronek can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-9047 . 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. /N.A.A./ Examiner, Art Unit 1687 /KAITLYN L MINCHELLA/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 1685