7 common mistakes inventors make when filing a patent (+ how to avoid them)

Most solo inventors don't have the luxury of venture capital backing or corporate legal budgets to spend $10,000-$25,000 on professional patent drafting and filing. Instead, you're probably bootstrapping your invention with personal savings, side hustle income, or maybe a small business loan, which means every dollar counts.

The good news is that the patent landscape has shifted significantly in recent years. AI patent drafting tools like Patentext now make it possible for inventors to create professional-quality first drafts at a fraction of traditional costs. Instead of starting from scratch with a blank page (or worse, a generic template), you can generate a comprehensive patent draft that captures your invention's technical details and legal requirements.

But here's the catch: even with AI assistance, there are common patent mistakes that can derail your application, extend review times by months, and ultimately cost you more in attorney fees and USPTO responses than you saved on the initial draft.

Whether you're planning to file the application yourself or hand off an AI-generated draft to a patent attorney for final review and filing, avoiding these 7 common patent mistakes will save you time, money, and the heartbreak of a rejected application. 

1. Overreliance on generic AI (like ChatGPT or Claude)

Generic AI tools like ChatGPT and Claude are trained on vast amounts of text from the internet, but they weren't designed specifically for patent law. Naturally, when inventors use these tools to draft patent applications, they often end up with conversational, blog-style language that sounds technical but lacks the precise legal terminology that USPTO examiners expect. 

Even worse, without the proper framework to draft patent applications, generic AI tools tend to gloss over the technical details and context that are critical to achieving valuable claims. For example, generic AI might describe a component of an invention as “novel” without describing the features that make it so.

This casual tone usually reflects a lack of technical and legal nuance, and that’s where examiners take issue. Applications drafted with generic AI often fail to include the specific, layered disclosures required to support meaningful claim scope. Without these details, there’s little for the claims to stand on during prosecution, making it difficult to secure protection that actually matters in the real world.

Our recommendation: Skip generic text generators. They can only describe your invention, not actually break it down into the components, variants, and technical relationships that you or a patent attorney need to file a strong application. Patentext Origin, on the other hand, guides you through the functional elements, embodiments, alternatives, and edge cases that form the backbone of a complete patent capable of protecting your idea. Join the free Patentext Origin waitlist to save 20% when we launch.

2. Inadequate prior art research before drafting

Many inventors jump straight into AI patent drafting without conducting thorough prior art research first. They might do a quick Google search or basic patent database lookup, but fail to provide the AI with comprehensive information about existing patents and publications in their field. Even worse, some inventors skip prior art research entirely, assuming the AI will somehow know what's already been patented. 

Our recommendation: Skip the amateur keyword searches as they often give a false sense of security and can cause inventors to overlook critical prior art. Instead, use an AI-based search tool that can analyze semantic relevance (not just keywords), or invest in a professional patent search if budget allows. Even if your drafting tool doesn’t include built-in search, taking this step upfront will make your application stronger, more differentiated, and less likely to get rejected out of the gate. Check out our list of free patent software for a roundup of these tools.

3. Incomplete or overly narrow technical disclosure inputs

Solo inventors often misjudge what kind of technical detail AI needs to generate a quality patent draft. Some provide vague, high-level descriptions like "it's a smart home device that saves energy" without explaining the specific mechanisms, algorithms, or technical processes that make their invention work. With too little detail, AI tools are forced to guess and fill in gaps with generic language or assumptions that don’t accurately reflect the invention.

On the flip side, it’s just as common for inventors to go too deep into the weeds on a single embodiment. They might describe one specific prototype in minute detail, without thinking through how the invention could apply more broadly across different materials, configurations, or use cases. The result is a draft that's technically rich but strategically weak, because it anchors the entire application to a narrow implementation.

Patentext is designed to help on both fronts. Our interface prompts inventors to flesh out technical details clearly and completely, but also helps abstract the invention to claimable concepts, so the draft isn’t limited to a single use case. That said, our tool isn’t completely immune to these limitations.

Our recommendation: Whether you’re drafting manually or using AI, take time to document both the specific and the general. Include detailed materials, mechanisms, and processes — but also think beyond your first prototype. What are alternate configurations? What variations could competitors use to design around you? The more complete and flexible your disclosure, the stronger your patent will be.

4. Misunderstanding claim scope and hierarchy

Patent claims are the legal heart of your application by defining exactly what you own and can enforce against competitors. However, most solo inventors don't understand the nuances of claim scope and hierarchy. They either ask AI to generate claims that are too broad (making them easy to invalidate based on prior art) or too narrow (making them easy for competitors to design around). 

Additionally, many inventors don't understand the relationship between independent claims (which stand alone) and dependent claims (which add specific limitations to other claims). AI tools can generate claims that are technically correct but strategically weak, leaving inventors with patents that look impressive but provide little real protection. 

Our recommendation: Before using AI for claim generation, educate yourself on basic patent claim strategy or use patent-specific AI tools that are designed to generate strategically sound claim hierarchies. Consider starting with broader independent claims and using dependent claims to cover specific embodiments and variations of your invention. Even better, consult with a patent attorney or agent who can advise you on claim strategy.

5. Inadequate drawings and specifications

One of the biggest blind spots for solo inventors using AI is the drawings requirement. AI tools can generate excellent written descriptions and claims, but they aren’t nearly as good at creating the detailed technical drawings that most patent applications require. 

Many inventors either skip drawings entirely, submit crude sketches that don't meet USPTO standards, or create drawings that don't align with their AI-generated text. Professional patent drawings must follow specific formatting rules, include proper reference numerals, and clearly illustrate every element mentioned in the claims. 

Our recommendation: Check out this guide, which answers some of the most common questions people have about patent drawings.

6. Ignoring USPTO formatting and filing requirements

AI tools excel at generating patent content, but they often don't format that content according to strict USPTO filing requirements. 

Solo inventors frequently submit AI-generated text without proper section headers, page numbering, claim formatting, or required legal statements. The USPTO has specific rules about everything from font size to paragraph numbering, and failing to follow these rules can result in filing objections and rejections that delay your application by months. 

Our recommendation: Use patent-specific AI tools that automatically format output according to USPTO requirements, or thoroughly review USPTO formatting guidelines before submitting any AI-generated content. 

7. Treating AI output as final instead of the starting point

Perhaps the most dangerous patent filing mistake that solo inventors make is treating AI-generated drafts as finished, ready-to-file documents. They copy and paste the AI output directly into their USPTO patent filing without any human review, editing, or verification. 

While tools like Patentext significantly improve the quality and accuracy of AI-generated patent drafts, we're not going to pretend they replace human expertise. Even though our patent-specific AI produces impressive results that far exceed generic tools, we always recommend that solo inventors have their drafts reviewed by a qualified patent agent or attorney before filing. 

Professional review ensures your claims are strategically sound, your technical disclosure is complete, and your application follows the latest USPTO guidelines and case law.

Our recommendation: Always treat AI-generated content as a sophisticated first draft that requires human review and refinement. Even if you're not using a patent attorney, plan for multiple rounds of editing where you verify technical accuracy, check all cited references, and ensure the claims properly capture your invention's unique value proposition.

Don’t fall for these common patent mistakes

Most costly patent filing mistakes happen because the invention wasn’t captured clearly enough at the start. Patentext Origin is designed to fix that by helping you structure your invention before drafting begins, so you have a clean, complete disclosure to share with a patent attorney for final claim strategy, drawings, and filing. In other words, instead of paying for a fully outsourced draft, you can prepare a solid, well-organized invention package that reduces attorney time, avoids rework, and minimizes the risk of USPTO objections caused by missing details.

Join the waitlist for Patentext Origin, a faster way to capture, structure, and prepare your invention for protection.

‍

Disclaimer: This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Patent laws are complex and vary by jurisdiction. For personalized guidance, consult a qualified patent attorney or agent.