Cdex, Inc. (fka CDEX)

[d4diddy]

The second amendment appears to contain all the same claims as the first amendment with the exception that the phrase "actively cooled sensor" has been replaced with the phrase "wherein the system is operable at large stand-off distances" in the base claims.

It was rejected by the examiner based on U.S.C. 112, Para. 2:

"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."


What does this mean? I believe it means that since everything else has been rejected(note 1), the whole invention rests on the insertion of this single phrase (or variation thereof) "operable at large stand-off distances" in the base claims.

The examiner has recognized this as what the applicant now regards as the basis for his invention.

The phrase was rejected for being ambiguous and vague and the examiner asked the applicant to be more specific.

The PTO is currently awaiting a response.

Note 1. I believe that the only claim which has not been rejected is the claim of having the unit mounted on a back pack.

P.S. I'm now getting a suspicious feeling that this application is being dragged along like the DA.