The Intellectual Property Forum

Hello all - I've recently gone solo in an in-house gig.  I'm basically running the full shop from typing to docketing to electronically filing.  Pretty much love it, although I certainly miss the feedback and griping I had in private practice.  Luckily a patent attorney friend of mine just opened up a solo shop.  We commiserate and help each other, but this is an attempt to get feedback from a wider audience (while possibly griping some, to boot).   

I received an Office Action today that, for the first time ever in my experience, rejected a claim under 112, second for having the term 'selectively'.  According to the Examiner, the term implies a condition is not always the case, which renders the claim indefinite.  In another claim, the term 'substantially' is said to be indefinite because "relative terms render the claims indefinite."

I've used these terms for roughly a decade, and a search on the PTO's own website reveals about 325,000 different patents that include the term 'selectively' in the claims since 1975.  There is no allegation the terms are indefinite to one of ordinary skill and no citations to any authority.  I always hate these types of rejections because I feel like if I reply thoroughly, I might alienate the Examiner.  Should I try to be succinct while still making sure I get the message across?  On the surface, it looks like a token rejection to get the first claim count.  The 102 and 103 rejections are very weak (the 102, in particular, being only partially justified by ignoring the claim phrase that contains 'selectively').

Anyone seen this before, and am I being silly to 1) think this is obnoxious and 2) be worried about 'over doing' the reply?