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submitted that the rejection is improper and must be withdrawn.
