Can you recommend a good strategy for getting these corrections incorporated into the specification without objections from the examiner? Is my situation common and ordinary, or am I asking for trouble?
You will need to do the correction to the specification and the claims as a "preliminary amendment," and you will need to show all of your changes. You can also explain your changes if you want -- but don't. There isn't any secret way to do this. The problem here is that if you try and pre-empt the examiner's rejections by explaining your amendments, you are creating a record that could be used to narrow the scope of your patent in a litigation. By making your arguments up-front, you may unwittingly limit your patent more than if you had just responded to the examiner's rejections. Based solely on what you've written, you are probably better off submitting your preliminary amendment, then wait and see what the examiner does, and THEN respond as necessary. If the preliminary amendment is fully enabled by the original provisional patent, maybe the examiner will find nothing to object to (at least vis-a-vis the preliminary amendment -- they always find something to reject with the original claims!).
All that said -- if you are working with a patent attorney, take their advice. If you don't trust them, find another patent attorney. If you are going this alone, make sure that your preliminary amendment followed the rules laid out in the MPEP -- there are specific ways that you have to indicate corrections in the specification.
If there are a LOT of corrections, it might be worthwhile to simply draft a new application as a continuation-in-part that derives priority from the original application, and then let the original application go abandoned (after filing the CIP, not before!). You might have more of an issue proving up your priority date later if you get involved in litigation (or you might not), but that might be a cleaner and easier solution (and create less of a prosecution record) than filing a huge preliminary amendment.
It all depends on what you want from your patent. Just for the sake of full disclosure, I am licensed to practice before the USPTO, and I have experience prosecuting patents, but I now solely practice patent litigation, so I am looking at your patent from that perspective -- that of a potential litigant. You may not be concerned with litigation or ultimate enforceability, in which case creating a prosecution record may not be such a big deal, and then the preliminary amendment would make more sense than a CIP.
Also, early in the preparation process my attorney told me that I didn't need drawings for every detail, as long as the written description was clear and complete. In my recent reading of USPTO guidelines, I have found rules to suggest that everything in the claims must be supported by the drawings. In other words, if a particular detail is not present in the drawings, it cannot be the subject of a claim, even if is clearly laid out in the description. Is that right?
That's not entirely correct. Claims must be fully disclosed and enabled by the specification, of which the drawings are a part. It is not correct that you can't claim something that isn't in the drawings -- but you can't claim something that is not fully disclosed and enabled by the specification. Drawings are required "where necessary." See, for example,
http://www.uspto.gov/web/offices/pac/mpep/documents/0600_608_02.htm#sect608.02
"37 CFR 1.81 Drawings required in patent application.
(a) The applicant for a patent is required to furnish a drawing of his or her invention where necessary for the understanding of the subject matter sought to be patented; this drawing, or a high quality copy thereof, must be filed with the application. Since corrections are the responsibility of the applicant, the original drawing(s) should be retained by the applicant for any necessary future correction.
(b) Drawings may include illustrations which facilitate an understanding of the invention (for example, flow sheets in cases of processes, and diagrammatic views).
(c) Whenever the nature of the subject matter sought to be patented admits of illustration by a drawing without its being necessary for the understanding of the subject matter and the applicant has not furnished such a drawing, the examiner will require its submission within a time period of not less than two months from the date of the sending of a notice thereof.
(d) Drawings submitted after the filing date of the application may not be used to overcome any insufficiency of the specification due to lack of an enabling disclosure or otherwise inadequate disclosure therein, or to supplement the original disclosure thereof for the purpose of interpretation of the scope of any claim."
If you see section (d), it clearly shows that drawings cannot overcome deficiencies in the "written description" -- the written part of the specification is the key to determining enablement. A drawing cannot expand the scope of a claim beyond what is in the written description. Yes, drawings are required, and good drawings can really make your application stronger, but it is not true that each and every claim element must be present in the drawings -- each and every claim element must be fully disclosed and enabled in the written description.
