No - the current trend is not to even mention prior art. Importantly there is no requirement to be better that what was already done. If it isn't better you might have a hard time selling it, but thats you concern, not the UPTO's. If it is novel and not obvious you can get a patent. Explaining how it differs from what was done in the past and why that difference is non-obvious will be needed. But it will be in response to the examiner saying "I think putting the concepts of X and Y and Z put together somehow makes yours obvious."

We no longer mention prior art for several reasons. One is the concept of prior art itself. There are requirements a document must meet to technically be prior art. But if you say it is prior art then it is - even if it wouldn't otherwise qualify. If you bash a particular thing from the past over a feature and you get a patent, a judge might say that anything with that feature can't possibly be your thing and is outside your claims even if it otherwise would be covered.

No - the current trend is not to even mention prior art. Importantly, there is no requirement to be better that what was already done. If it isn't better, you might have a hard time selling it, but that's your concern, not the UPTO's. If it is novel and not obvious, you can get a patent. Explaining how it differs from what was done in the past, and why that difference is non-obvious will be needed. But it will be in response to the examiner saying "I think putting the concepts of X and Y and Z put together somehow makes yours obvious."

We no longer mention prior art for several reasons. One is the concept of prior art itself. There are requirements a document must meet to technically be prior art. But if you say it is prior art then it is - even if it wouldn't otherwise qualify. If you bash a particular thing from the past over a feature and you get a patent, a judge might say that anything with that feature can't possibly be your thing and is outside your claims even if it otherwise would be covered.