608.04(b) (Jan. 2018) says:
> Applicants can avoid the need to file a preliminary amendment by incorporating any
> desired amendments into the text of the specification, even where the application is
> a continuation or divisional application of a prior-filed application. Applicants are
> strongly encouraged to avoid submitting any preliminary amendments.
However, this "strong encourage[ment]" does not apply to national-stage applications under 35 USC 371. For a 371, "the Office will use the description, claims, abstract and drawings as published in the [WIPO] pamphlet for the U.S. national stage application." MPEP 1893.03(e), I. Similarly, "[t]he application size fee ... is determined on the basis of the international application as published by WIPO." MPEP 1893.01(c). I suggest amending 608.04(b) to note this fact, and to refer to 1893.03(e) and 1893.01(c).
I also suggest adding text to clarify which applies to a bypass application. For a bypass, does the Office prefer a clean spec incorporating changes, like a regular continuation, or does the Office prefer a preliminary amendment, like a 371?
(All opinions are my own and not necessarily those of my employer, any client, or any other party.)