Isn't the basic premise of a utility patent to be unique and at the very least show innovative improvements over prior arts and usefulness in the current arts?
To explain from my point of view and experience.
In specific categories if you have a unique design, that is something for the first time used in say the automotive industry, then I do not have to specifically address cited references because they are only being used as like design examples to validate the design's abilities.
However if I am improving on every prior art that is cited as a reference with a unique design approach to a already existing design problem that was to date not completely solved than I must address why my design is an advancement over every prior related design to validate my complete design's solution.
My first question is a patent stronger, more defendible, if it specifically addresses why it is in an improvement over related prior art?
My second question is it easier to obtain a patent if the application includes references cited by the inventor and the inventor addresses the improvements?
... Before answering please read this patent first that I researched, wrote, and argued and included why my design is an improvement to all design features over every like design in all 22 prior arts cited and understand so far at least one attempt by others to patent a design for this intention was denied a patent grant because they could not show improvement over US7721837B1. https://patents.google.com/patent/US7721837B1/