DETAILED ACTION Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis ( i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA ) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. Drawings The drawings are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “ valve spring which serves to urge the valve member into the closed position to prevent the airflow past the valve member when the vacuum cleaner is in the ON state ” recited in claim 8 must be shown or the feature(s) canceled from the claim(s). No new matter should be entered. Corrected drawing sheets in compliance with 37 CFR 1.121(d) are required in reply to the Office action to avoid abandonment of the application. Any amended replacement drawing sheet should include all of the figures appearing on the immediate prior version of the sheet, even if only one figure is being amended. The figure or figure number of an amended drawing should not be labeled as “amended.” If a drawing figure is to be canceled, the appropriate figure must be removed from the replacement sheet, and where necessary, the remaining figures must be renumbered and appropriate changes made to the brief description of the several views of the drawings for consistency. Additional replacement sheets may be necessary to show the renumbering of the remaining figures. Each drawing sheet submitted after the filing date of an application must be labeled in the top margin as either “Replacement Sheet” or “New Sheet” pursuant to 37 CFR 1.121(d). If the changes are not accepted by the examiner, the applicant will be notified and informed of any required corrective action in the next Office action. The objection to the drawings will not be held in abeyance. Claim Interpretation The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(f): (f) Element in Claim for a Combination. – An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The following is a quotation of pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: An element in a claim for a combination may be expressed as a means or step for performing a specified function without the recital of structure, material, or acts in support thereof, and such claim shall be construed to cover the corresponding structure, material, or acts described in the specification and equivalents thereof. The claims in this application are given their broadest reasonable interpretation using the plain meaning of the claim language in light of the specification as it would be understood by one of ordinary skill in the art. The broadest reasonable interpretation of a claim element (also commonly referred to as a claim limitation) is limited by the description in the specification when 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is invoked. As explained in MPEP § 2181, subsection I, claim limitations that meet the following three-prong test will be interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph: (A) the claim limitation uses the term “means” or “step” or a term used as a substitute for “means” that is a generic placeholder (also called a nonce term or a non-structural term having no specific structural meaning) for performing the claimed function; (B) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is modified by functional language, typically, but not always linked by the transition word “for” (e.g., “means for”) or another linking word or phrase, such as “configured to” or “so that”; and (C) the term “means” or “step” or the generic placeholder is not modified by sufficient structure, material, or acts for performing the claimed function. Use of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim with functional language creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites sufficient structure, material, or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Absence of the word “means” (or “step”) in a claim creates a rebuttable presumption that the claim limitation is not to be treated in accordance with 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph. The presumption that the claim limitation is not interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, is rebutted when the claim limitation recites function without reciting sufficient structure, material or acts to entirely perform the recited function. Claim limitations in this application that use the word “means” (or “step”) are being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Conversely, claim limitations in this application that do not use the word “means” (or “step”) are not being interpreted under 35 U.S.C. 112(f) or pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 112, sixth paragraph, except as otherwise indicated in an Office action. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1-5, 9, 11-12, and 15 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lawson et al. (US PGPub 2019/0183305, "Lawson") in view of Machida (JP 2011010887). 1. Lawson teaches a vacuum cleaner (4) for use with a serviceable filter assembly (44 is serviceable, see Lawson [0085]), wherein the vacuum cleaner is operable between ON and OFF states and comprises; a cyclonic dust separation device (separator 50 includes two cyclonic separation stages, see Lawson fig. 3 and [0082]-[0083]) which is operable, when the vacuum cleaner is in the ON state, to provide separation of dust from an airflow through the vacuum cleaner (Lawson [0082]-[0083]); a motor (42) for generating the airflow through the vacuum cleaner, the motor having a motor cover (motor housing 38) provided with at least one fluid opening (90) which defines a part of a fluid flow path for fluid originating from the serviceable filter assembly (air from the separator stages flows through a pre-motor filter 84 of filter assembly 44, through apertures 90 in housing 38, through motor 42, and out a post motor filter 86, see Lawson [0094]). Lawson does not teach the presence of a valve assembly operable between open and closed positions to open and close, respectively, the at least one fluid opening in the motor cover. However, Machida teaches the use of a filter cleaning mechanism (28) and a valve assembly (26) configured to open and close a fluid opening (23), thereby allowing fine dust from a filter (14) located immediately upstream in a fluid flow path from a motor (10) to fall into a dust collection area (25) when the motor is not actively powered (see Machida figs. 2, 4, and 10, and Machida Translation [0010]). It would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to combine the teachings of Machida regarding filter regeneration and valve assemblies with the cleaner of Lawson such that it included a valve assembly positioned on a motor casing (i.e., on a front portion of 38a such that waste was allowed to drop into second dirt collection chamber 78, see Lawson fig. 3) a operable between open and closed positions to open and close, respectively, at least one fluid opening in the motor cover, as doing so would allow for regeneration of the pre-motor filter while reducing re-adhesion to the filter by preventing waste material dropped into a collection area from directly re-adhering to the filter. See Machida Translation [0011]. 2. Lawson as modified teaches the vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein the valve assembly is configured such that, when the vacuum cleaner is in the ON state, the valve assembly is in the closed position to prevent the airflow through the at least one fluid opening, and when the vacuum cleaner is in the OFF state the valve assembly is in the open position to open the fluid flow path through the at least one fluid opening (the valve taught by Machida is open when powered off and closed when powered on, see Machida figs. 2, 4, and 10, and Machida Translation [0010]). 3. Lawson as modified teaches the vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 1, wherein the valve assembly includes a valve member which is received within the motor cover and is movable to open and close the at least one fluid opening in the motor cover when switching between the open and closed positions, respectively (the valve taught by Machida includes valve member 26, which is movable between open and closed positions see Machida figs. 2, 4, and 10; the combination with Lawson would result in the valve member being positioned on a front end of motor cover 38a so as to allow waste to drop into second dirt collection chamber 78, see Lawson fig. 3). 4. Lawson as modified teaches the vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 3, wherein the valve member is received through a valve opening provided in the motor cover member (valve member 26 occupies a valve opening 23, such a member would include some linkage through the opening such as a hinge, see, e.g., Machida fig. 4). 5. Lawson as modified teaches the vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 4, but does not explicitly teach that the valve opening is positioned on a central longitudinal axis of the vacuum cleaner. However, Lawson teaches that the second dirt collection chamber (78) coaxial with a central axis and located radially inwards from an outer dust collection chamber (Lawson fig. 3 and [0083]). Furthermore, because the secondary cyclones (70) occupy an outer radius of the second dirt collection chamber entrance (see Lawson fig. 3), for waste to flow from pre-motor filter (84) into second dirt collection chamber (78), it would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill before the effective filing date to modify the valve opening such that it included a portion positioned on a central longitudinal axis of the vacuum cleaner, as doing so would provide a path for dust to travel from the pre-motor filter to the second dirty collection chamber without being blocked by the secondary cyclones. 9. Lawson as modified teaches the vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 3, further comprising retaining means to limit movement of the valve member when it moves into the open position (pivot attachment point on valve prevents the valve member from moving outside the designated arc of motion, see, e.g., Machida fig. 4 and Machida Translation [0027]). 11. Lawson as modified teaches the vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim l, comprising a plurality of fluid openings provided in the motor cover (plural outlets for a single filter, see Machida fig. 4). 12. Lawson as modified teaches the vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim 11, but does not explicitly teach that each of the plurality of fluid openings is of arc-shaped form. However, it has been held that “[a] person of ordinary skill in the art is also a person of ordinary creativity, not an automaton.” KSR International Co. v. Teleflex Inc. (KSR), 550 U.S. 398, 421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1397 (2007) “[I]n many cases a person of ordinary skill will be able to fit the teachings of multiple patents together like pieces of a puzzle.” Id. at 420, 82 USPQ2d at 1397. Office personnel may also take into account “the inferences and creative steps that a person of ordinary skill in the art would employ.” Id. at 418, 82 USPQ2d at 1396. It would have been obvious for one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to, in the process of modifying Lawson to implement the valve of Machida, produce openings of arc-shaped form, as the rectangular openings of Machida (see, e.g. Machida fig. 4) are configured for use with a generally rectangular filter shape, while Lawson teaches a cylindrical filter (see Lawson figs. 3-4). In the process of adapting the valve of Machida to the cleaner of Lawson, using arc-shaped openings for the valve would have been logical to one of ordinary skill, as arc-shaped openings would better conform to the shape of the housing and filter. 15. Lawson as modified teaches the vacuum cleaner as claimed in claim l, but although Lawson teaches the presence of a display screen (100) and a set of control members (104a,104b, see Lawson [0042]-[0049]), that reside beneath an uppermost end of the filter assembly when the vacuum cleaner is in a stowed position (100, 104a, and 104b are positioned inward from end of 44, when positioned such that the end of the cleaner including 100 faces upward, the control members are slightly lower than an uppermost edge of 44, see Lawson figs. 3-4), it does not explicitly teach the presence of a printed circuit board including a controller for the motor, wherein the printed circuit board resides beneath the filter assembly when the vacuum cleaner is in a stowed position. However, it has been held that “in considering the disclosure of a reference, it is proper to take into account not only specific teachings of the reference but also the inferences which one skilled in the art would reasonably be expected to draw therefrom.” MPEP § 2144.01, citing In re Preda , 401 F.2d 825, 826, 159 USPQ 342, 344 (CCPA 1968). One of ordinary skill before the effective filing date would understand, given the disclosures from Lawson that the control members and display screen control operation of the motor (Lawson [0044]), that some sort of printed circuit board including a controller for the motor and associated with the explicitly disclosed display/control elements would be present, and that said circuit board would be located somewhere below the uppermost portion of the filter assembly when it was in the stowed position. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 6-8 , 10, and 13-14 are objected to as being dependent upon a rejected base claim, but would be allowable if rewritten in independent form including all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. The following is a statement of reasons for the indication of allowable subject matter: Regarding claims 6-8 10, and 13-14, the closest identified prior art of Lawson as modified by Machida does not teach that: (6) the valve member includes a stem portion and a sealing portion, wherein the stem portion is received within the valve opening and wherein the sealing portion has a surface which seals against the motor cover to close the at least one fluid opening when the valve assembly is in the closed position; (7) the valve member is configured such that, when the vacuum cleaner is stowed in an upright position in the OFF state, the valve member is movable under a force due to gravity into the open position; (8) the valve assembly includes a valve spring which serves to urge the valve member into the closed position to prevent the airflow past the valve member when the vacuum cleaner is in the ON state; (10) the retaining means includes an annular flange carried on the valve member which engages with the motor cover to limit the extent of movement of the valve member; (13) the cyclonic dust separation device includes at least one vortex tube in communication with a primary cyclone, wherein at least one of the vortex tubes forms a part of the fluid flow path when the vacuum cleaner is in the OFF state and the valve assembly is in the open position; or (14) the primary cyclone forms a part of the fluid flow path when the vacuum cleaner is in the OFF state and the valve assembly is in the open position. Additionally, although North (US 6936095) teaches valve structures including a stem portion and a sealing portion on a valve (stem portion 76 and sealing portion 74 on a poppet valve, see North fig. 4), that valves may be actuated by gravity or a spring (North 9:31-55), that the valve includes an annular sealing flange (80, see North fig. 4), and that the valve is in fluid communication with different stages of a cyclonic separator (see North fig. 3), it contains no teaching or suggestion about putting such a valve in a motor cover, and consequently would not have led one of ordinary skill to create the claimed invention. Consequently, claims 6-8, 10, and 13-14 contain allowable subject matter. Conclusion The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Kim et al. (US 10660493), Zeiler et al. (US 7712182), Touya et al. (US 4924548), Toya (US 4894882), Berfield et al. (US 4462137), and Levine (US 4542557, US 4536914) teach the inclusion of liquid drains near a motor fan assembly in vacuum cleaners. Dyson et al. (US 6231649), Sovis et al. (US 4547206), Hyatt et al. (US 4226575), DeSisto (US 4527960), and Kim et al. (US PGPub 2006/0265834) teach the inclusion of valves in or near a motor casing that allow outside air into a flow path. North (US 6818033), Beckwith (US 4947903), Dyson (US 4643748), and Regnault (US 3816982) teach valve structures or other mechanisms that open a flow path when a suction motor is turned off. Sloan et al. (US 4691407) teaches a check valve positioned near a motor casing and configured to turn off the motor when a cavity is full. Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT JONATHAN R ZAWORSKI whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7804 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monday-Thursday 8:00-5:00, Fridays 9:00-1:00 . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Monica Carter can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)-272-4475 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /J.R.Z./ Examiner, Art Unit 3723 /MONICA S CARTER/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 3723