US National Phase Common Mistakes: How to avoid

Recognizing and Avoiding US National Phase Common Mistakes

PCT applicants entering the US national phase will benefit by understanding specific USPTO requirements and rules that may seem foreign or inconsistent with their local patent office rules. This is a brief list of common US national phase mistakes you’ll want to avoid when you are ready to enter the US national stage. By recognizing these pitfalls before entering the US national phase, PCT applicants will reduce delay and costs.

Title of US national phase application

The following words should be avoided altogether in the title:

  • “new”
  • ‘improved,” “improvement of,” “improvement in”

The first words of the title should avoid the following articles:

  • “a” or “an”
  • “the”

An amendment to the title should be made via a Preliminary Amendment. The Application Data Sheet (ADS) should show the amended title if the Preliminary Amendment will be filed concurrently with the initial filing of the US national stage application.

Inventor Declarations

Do not change the title in the inventor declaration. It’s best to use the same title as the PCT publication for the initial filing. This avoids the needs to file a Preliminary Amendment and an ADS with a modified title. If the title must be amended, we suggest filing a Preliminary Amendment after the initial filing.

If your inventor declarations will be late, make sure to submit them before filing a Request for Continued Examination. Otherwise, the USPTO might issue a notice of abandonment.

English Translations

If the PCT application was published in a non-English language, then an English translation of the published PCT application should be provided without any amendments. Any desired amendments to the specification should be made via a Preliminary Amendment with clean and marked-up substitute specifications.

If the drawings contain foreign characters, then drawings with English translations should be provided.

Claim errors originating from PCT application

Here are some common issues we see in the claims:

Improper multiple dependent claims

This is where a multiple dependent claim depends upon another multiple dependent claim, which is unacceptable. We generally recommend removing the multiple dependencies which also saves the USPTO multiple dependent claim fee ($410 for small entity).

Amended claims lacking markups

Inserted text must be underlined while deleted language must be shown as strikethrough with respect to the prior version.

Deleted claims

Do not show the entire claim as strikethrough. Instead, simply state “(canceled)” after the claim number – e.g., “2. (canceled)” – and delete all claim language following the claim number.

Renumbering claims

The original claim numbers should remain intact. If a claim is being canceled, do not renumber the following claims. For example, if Claim 2 is canceled, do not renumber Claim 3 as Claim 2 and so on.

Adding claims in the middle of an existing claim set

Do not insert new claims in the middle of the existing claims. Instead, new claims should be added after the last original claim and numbered with the next sequential number.

Is the corporate applicant a small entity or large entity?

Whenever we’re handling a US national stage application for a company, the first question we seek to determine is whether the company qualifies as a small entity or large entity. This makes a substantial difference in official fees since the USPTO fees for a large entity are twice as much as those for a small entity. And, since many of our international partners want an initial filing estimate prior to instructing us to file, knowing the entity status upfront enables us to provide accurate estimates. There is no need to pay double the USPTO fees if it can be avoided upfront.

Want to avoid making US national phase mistakes?

Contact US patent attorney Vic Lin at or call (949) 223-9623. Let’s discuss how we can help file your US national phase application correctly and avoid delays and extra costs.

How useful was this post? (Did you find the information you needed?)

Click on a star to rate it!

Thank you for rating my post!

We want to do better.

Could you tell us what was missing in our post?

Frenda Williams
Frenda Williams
I have had the pleasure of working with Vic and his team at Innovation Capital Law Group on Trademark creation and contracts. As a solo and non-tech founder, the assistance, guidance and recommendations from Vic and his team have been INVALUABLE. And, with the knowledge that I have a Solid, well versed and caring legal team I can turn to, I have the confidence I need to navigate the intricacies of the tech industry as a solo founder. With that being said, If you’re a startup and you’re looking for a legal team that speaks your language, knows the industry and makes you feel like family…. Innovation Capital Law Group is a Perfect fit for you, your company and your team. Five out of Five Stars… don’t let their brilliance blind you 😁
Shiwei Liu
Shiwei Liu
Excellent service and quick response. Lots of informative documents on its website.
Chang Chien Michael
Chang Chien Michael
I have worked with iCap for more than 7 years. I am very glad with his professional knowledge that 7 utility patents were granted by USPTO. Vic and his team are very efficient and knowledgeable. Every time he can transcribe my design idea perfectly in two weeks and file it with no rejection from USPTO. The other service including the granted patent following up is always in time to remind me to take actions. That is why I still stick on iCap as my first priority when I want to file a US patent.
Mats Johansson
Mats Johansson
We have been happy client for 10+ years. Awesome Patent Law Firm!
Hanson Chang
Hanson Chang
Glad to write a review for Innovation Capital Law Group. We previously worked with a big law firm (2200 employees) on our patents, and decided to shift over to Innovation Capital. It was a great decision, this team got our patents done faster, more effectively, at a lower cost, and with broader claims. Win all around
Genevieve Springer
Genevieve Springer
Clear, discernible tools and strategies couched within a business conceived from a genuine interest in doing right by founders.
InPlay Inc
InPlay Inc
Vic and his team have been providing us with the best patent application experiences we could ever have in our entire career life! Their professionalism and technical knowledge have really saved us a lot of communication effort and time on the applications. Definitely highly recommend if anyone is looking for help with IP protection for their business.
Meg Crowley
Meg Crowley
After working with Vic and his team at Innovation Capital Law Group, our organization is confident our trademarks were solid and protected. Thank you team.
Andy Dong
Andy Dong
I have been using Innovation Capital Law Group for a few years and continue to use them. They have provided an excellent services on our legal issues including intellectual properties and patents . They are very responsive, easy to work with and very competent . I highly recommend them.

Follow us

Copyright © Vic Lin 2023