Examiner's arbitrary and capricious

The Examiner’s failure to specifically identify which features of [...] are alleged to disclose each element of Applicant’s presently claimed invention renders the Office Action “arbitrary and capricious”, and therefore invalid, under the Administrative Procedure Act (5 U.S.C. § 706), a standard to which all Actions by the USPTO must adhere (see Dickenson v. Zurko, 527 U.S. 150 (1999)). Without proper guidance as to which “element” of the claim is believed to correspond with which section cited in the rejection, Applicant is forced to guess which features in the cited art the Examiner believed to disclose each of the claimed features.  Because reasons for the rejection were not presented in the Office Action and Applicant cannot reasonably determine which feature of [...]

 is believed to correspond with which feature recited in the claims, it is respectfully submitted that the rejection is improper and must be withdrawn.