Ok here are the relevant parts of the USPTO response..........opinions

Does it seem like EDIG didn't file something they should have with relation to item 1?

Does it seem like the examiner could not give an answer one way or another on the AMENDMENTS because they require further investigation? And now he is doing that or now he is doing nothing until EDIG files to solve ITEM 1?  Thoughts, feelings????

THE REPLY FILED 11 May 2017 FAILS TO PLACE THIS APPLICATION IN CONDITION FOR ALLOWANCE.

NO NOTICE OF APPEAL FILED

1. The reply was filed after a final rejection. No Notice of Appeal has been filed. To avoid abandonment of this application, applicant must timely file one of the following replies: (1) an amendment, affidavit, or other evidence, which places the application in condition for allowance; (2) a Notice of Appeal (with appeal fee) in compliance with 37 CFR 41.31; or (3) a Request for Continued Examination (RCE) in compliance with 37 CFR 1.114 if this is a utility or plant application. Note that RCEs are not permitted in design applications. The reply must be filed within one of the following time periods:

a) The period for reply expires 3 months from the mailing date of the final rejection.

AMENDMENTS

3. The proposed amendments filed after a final rejection, but prior to the date of filing a brief, will not be entered because

       a) They raise new issues that would require further consideration and/or search (see NOTE below);

7.  For purposes of appeal, the proposed amendment(s): (a) will not be entered, 

FROM Page 3

Continuation of 3. NOTE: Applicant incorporated various limitations in the independent claims 1,12, and 17. Amendments to the claims change scope and require further consideration and search ..