BASKETBALL SHOOTING SYSTEM

§102 §103

DETAILED ACTION This Office action is responsive to communication received 11/04/2024 – application papers received, including Power of Attorney. 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 . Continuation Data This application claims benefit of 63/595,654 11/02/2023. Drawings The drawings received 11/04/2024 are objected to under 37 CFR 1.83(a). The drawings must show every feature of the invention specified in the claims. Therefore, the “throwback mechanism” (claim 4) 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. Status of Claims Claims 1-20 are pending. FOLLOWING IS AN ACTION ON THE MERITS: Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. The following is a quotation of the appropriate paragraphs of 35 U.S.C. 102 that form the basis for the rejections under this section made in this Office action: A person shall be entitled to a patent unless – (a)(1) the claimed invention was patented, described in a printed publication, or in public use, on sale, or otherwise available to the public before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. (a)(2) the claimed invention was described in a patent issued under section 151, or in an application for patent published or deemed published under section 122(b), in which the patent or application, as the case may be, names another inventor and was effectively filed before the effective filing date of the claimed invention. Claims 1 and 10 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102(a)(1) as being anticipated by USPN 10,688,362 to Sangalang. As to claim 1, Sangalang discloses an apparatus (FIG. 1), comprising: a frame (1); at least one rail (10) coupled to the frame (1); a sled (5) movably connected to the at least one rail (10; FIG. 2) and configured to move along a first axis in a z-direction (i.e., sled 5 is configured to roll along the track 10 in a direction toward and away from a player standing at a forward end of the apparatus); a shaft (i.e., mast 6) connected to the sled (5) in a perpendicular orientation relative to the at least one rail (i.e., track 10) and configured to rotate at least 180 degrees about a rotational axis in a vertical plane defined by a second axis perpendicular to the first axis (i.e., note vertical axis 15; see the arrows on plate 16 in FIG. 1 and col. 2, lines 59-63); a backboard (7) connected to the sled and configured to move along the shaft in the vertical plane in a y-direction (i.e., col. 2, lines 51-58); and further including a basketball hoop (8) connected to the backboard (7). As to claim 10, the shaft (i.e., mast 6) is configured to rotate at least 90 degrees about the rotation axis in a left direction and right direction relative to a front of the frame (i.e., see the arrows on plate 16 in FIG. 1 and col. 2, lines 59-63). Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 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. 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. The factual inquiries for establishing a background for determining obviousness under 35 U.S.C. 103 are summarized as follows: 1. Determining the scope and contents of the prior art. 2. Ascertaining the differences between the prior art and the claims at issue. 3. Resolving the level of ordinary skill in the pertinent art. 4. Considering objective evidence present in the application indicating obviousness or nonobviousness. The Supreme Court in KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007) identified a number of rationales to support a conclusion of obviousness which are consistent with the proper "functional approach" to the determination of obviousness as laid down in Graham. The key to supporting any rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 is the clear articulation of the reason(s) why the claimed invention would have been obvious. The Supreme Court in KSR noted that the analysis supporting a rejection under 35 U.S.C. 103 should be made explicit. In Ball Aerosol v. Ltd. Brands, 555 F.3d 984, 89 USPQ2d 1870 (Fed. Cir. 2009), the Federal Circuit offered additional instruction as to the need for an explicit analysis. The Federal Circuit explained that the Supreme Court’s requirement for an explicit analysis does not require record evidence of an explicit teaching of a motivation to combine in the prior art. PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale "[T]he analysis that "should be made explicit" refers not to the teachings in the prior art of a motivation to combine, but to the court’s analysis. . . . Under the flexible inquiry set forth by the Supreme Court, the district court therefore erred by failing to take account of 'the inferences and creative steps,' or even routine steps, that an inventor would employ and by failing to find a motivation to combine related pieces from the prior art." Ball Aerosol, 555 F.3d at 993, 89 USPQ2d at 1877. PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale The Federal Circuit’s directive in Ball Aerosol was addressed to a lower court, but it applies to Office personnel as well. When setting forth a rejection, Office personnel are to continue to make appropriate findings of fact as explained in MPEP § 2141 and § 2143, and must provide a reasoned explanation as to why the invention as claimed would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art at the time of the invention. This requirement for explanation remains even in situations in which Office personnel may properly rely on intangible realities such as common sense and ordinary ingenuity. PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale I. EXEMPLARY RATIONALES PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale Exemplary rationales that may support a conclusion of obviousness include: PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (A) Combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results; PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (B) Simple substitution of one known element for another to obtain predictable results; PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (C) Use of known technique to improve similar devices (methods, or products) in the same way; PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (D) Applying a known technique to a known device (method, or product) ready for improvement to yield predictable results; PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (E) "Obvious to try" – choosing from a finite number of identified, predictable solutions, with a reasonable expectation of success; PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (F) Known work in one field of endeavor may prompt variations of it for use in either the same field or a different one based on design incentives or other market forces if the variations are predictable to one of ordinary skill in the art; PNG media_image1.png 18 19 media_image1.png Greyscale (G) Some teaching, suggestion, or motivation in the prior art that would have led one of ordinary skill to modify the prior art reference or to combine prior art reference teachings to arrive at the claimed invention. Claims 2, 3, 5 and 7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 10,688,362 to Sangalang in view of USPN 4,805,917 to Cochran et al (hereinafter referred to as “Cochran”). As to claims 2, 3 and 5, Sangalang does not explicitly disclose “a chute coupled to the frame and configured to return a ball to a user” (claim 2); “wherein the chute has a decline from the basketball hoop towards a front of the frame” (claim 3) and “wherein the chute comprises a sold surface” (claim 5). Cochran shows these features in a basketball practice apparatus, wherein a return chute (i.e., solid board 24, 26; col. 4, line 27) extends from a frame and wherein the return chute declines from the hoop towards a front of the frame (FIG. 1). The return chute provides a convenient means for containing the ball and quickly returning to a user standing at the front of the frame (i.e., col. 3, lines 40-48). In view of the teaching in Cochran, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Sangalang by including a suitable return chute, attached to the frame and leading towards a front of the frame, to reduce the time needed for a spent basketball to return to the forward portion of the frame and to make it easier for a player to retrieve a spent basketball. As to claim 7, Sangalang lacks “a bounce bar configured to ricochet a ball from the basketball hoop towards a front of the frame”. Cochran also shows a board (18) that may clearly serve as a “bounce bar”, as broadly as claimed, to contain the basketballs in such a way that a user has immediate access to the next available basketball. In view of the further teaching in Cochran, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Sangalang by incorporating a bounce bar so that a player may gain immediate access to the next basketball that is available for shooting towards the target. Claim 4 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 10,688,362 to Sangalang in view of USPN 4,805,917 to Cochran et al (hereinafter referred to as “Cochran”) and also in view of USPN 8,206,246 to Joseph et al (hereinafter referred to as “Joseph”). As to claim 4, Sangalang, as modified by Cochran, does not explicitly disclose “wherein the chute comprises a throwback mechanism for returning the ball to the user through the air”. Joseph shows it to be old in the art to provide a basketball game with an ejector mechanism (20) that may be configured to throw balls back towards a player (i.e., col. 2, line 65 through col. 3, line 16). In view of the teaching in Joseph, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Sangalang by incorporating a throwback mechanism for added convenience and to more easily and quickly move a basketball to a player in preparation of another shot attempt. Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 10,688,362 to Sangalang in view of USPN 8,206,246 to Joseph et al (hereinafter referred to as “Joseph”). As to claim 6, Sangalang does not explicitly disclose “wherein the frame tapers away from the basketball hoop towards a top of the frame such that the frame is wider at a top of the frame than at a bottom of the frame”. Joseph shows what may be considered to be a frame assembly (i.e., FIG. 1, net system 34) which is wider at the top of the frame as compared to a lower or bottom portion of the frame. The arrangement in Joseph clearly enables basketballs to be contained and redirected towards a middle of the frame assembly at which point a collection trough or chute is arranged to funnel the spent basketballs into a return mechanism. Here, the wider frame serves to contain the basketballs. At this point, it is noted that the applicant has not provided any reason(s) whatsoever for having the feature recited in claim 6, but merely states that the frame contains a wider top portion (i.e., see Specification, paragraphs [0023] and [0032]). In view of the teaching in Joseph, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Sangalang by providing the frame with a wider top portion and a tapering frame portion to direct any spent basketballs generally in the direction of the central portion of the frame assembly for ease of retrieval. Claim 8 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 10,688,362 to Sangalang in view of either USPN 5,480,139 to Owen et al (hereinafter referred to as “Owen”) or USPN 2,918,283 to Marschalk. As to claim 8, Sangalang does not explicitly disclose “wherein the basketball hoop is dynamically resizeable to increase or decrease a diameter of the basketball hoop”. Each of Owen and Marschalk discusses an assembly that enables the diameter of the hoop to be changed to help enhance a player’s skill for improved shot accuracy (i.e., see FIG. 2 and col. 1, lines 36-52 along with col. 6, lines 14-56 in Owen; and see col. 1, lines 39-50 along with col. 2, lines 4-25 in Marschalk). In view of either of the teachings in Owen or Marschalk, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Sangalang by incorporating a basketball hoop that is dynamically resizable in order to promote increased shot accuracy through repeated practice. / / / / Claim 9 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 10,688,362 to Sangalang in view of USPN 6,918,591 to D’Amico et al (hereinafter referred to as “D’Amico”). As to claim 9, Sangalang does not explicitly disclose “wherein the backboard is dynamically resizeable to increase or decrease an area of the backboard”. D’Amico shows it to be old in the art to provide backboards of different sizes to test and to enhance the skill level of a player (i.e., col. 3, lines 6-18 and lines 39-43). In view of the teaching in D’Amico, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Sangalang by incorporating a backboard that is dynamically resizeable in order to change the skill level of the game, wherein a backboard of a different size would clearly have changed the accuracy needed on the part of a player to, for example, bank a shot off the backboard and through the rim. Claims 11-14 and 16 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PUBS 2023/0059591 to Chan in view of US PUBS 2014/0092253 to Marty et al (hereinafter referred to as “Marty”). At the outset, it is noted that the effective filing date of claim 11 is the actual filing date of the instant application, which equals 11/04/2024. Despite the fact that the applicant claims domestic priority to a provisional application Serial No. 63/595,654, filed 11/02/2023, this provisional application does not disclose the “memory” and the “processor” recited in claim 11 and thus does not fully support the claimed language in claim 11. As to claim 11, Chan discloses an apparatus (18), comprising: a memory (i.e., paragraph [0056]); and a processor (i.e., again, see paragraph [0056]) coupled with the memory and configured to cause the apparatus to: receive a selection of a location on the graphic of the at least a portion of the basketball court (i.e., the projector 58 may project basketball court lines 60 on a portion of the court; see paragraph [0056]); and trigger an actuator coupled to a basketball hoop to orient the basketball hoop relative to a user's position based on the selected location (i.e., the hoop is directed to align with the projected basketball court lines; see paragraph [0057]). Chan differs from the claimed invention in that Chan does not explicitly disclose “an interface displaying a graphic of at least a portion of a basketball court” coupled to the processor. Marty teaches that it is old in the art to include an interface (i.e., display) wherein trajectory data and other information related to the court and to the practice session may be viewed (i.e., paragraphs [0103], [0143], [0154] and claim 5 of Marty). In view of the teachings in Marty, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Chan by incorporating an interface in order to enable a player and/or coach/trainer to conveniently access and set-up the parameters of the practice session and to be able to conveniently review the shot tracking to monitor player performance. As to claim 12, Marty teaches that it is old in the art to include sensors to track a basketball shot (i.e., paragraphs [0138] – [0140] and [0148] – [0150], and [0167]). In view of the teachings in Marty, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Chan by incorporating sensors to efficiently track the shot path of a basketball, wherein the sensors work in conjunction with the processor. As to claim 13, Marty teaches that it is old in the art to include the ability to see an animation of the basketball shot on the interface based upon the information gathered by the sensors (i.e., FIG. 5; paragraph [0076], [0078], [0094], [0103], and [0167]). In view of the teachings in Marty, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Chan by configuring the processor such that the interface is able to show an animation of the basketball shot, with the shot being tracked and the shot information being gathered by the sensor(s). This arrangement would have assisted the player and/or coach in providing useful feedback when analyzing the shot trajectory. As to claim 14, Marty teaches that it is old in the art to also enable collection of data using sensors based upon movement of the player (i.e., paragraph [0163] and [0167]). In view of the teachings in Marty, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Chan by configuring the processor to include tracking of a user’s movement(s), as this arrangement would have assisted the player and/or coach in providing useful feedback when analyzing the shot trajectory along with the player’s movements. As to claim 16, Marty teaches that multiple parameters may be collected through the sensor(s) associated with the system (i.e., paragraphs [0086] – [0087] and [0151] – [0155]). In view of the teachings in Marty, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Chan by configuring the processor to track one or more shooting statistics for the user, as this arrangement would have assisted the player and/or coach in providing additional feedback when analyzing the shot trajectory. Claim 15 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PUBS 2023/0059591 to Chan in view of US PUBS 2014/0092253 to Marty et al (hereinafter referred to as “Marty”) and also in view of US PUBS 2014/0320596 to Qualls. As to claim 19, Chan, as modified by Marty, lacks “wherein the processor is configured to cause the apparatus to generate one or more holographic images of other users to simulate competition or training”. Qualls shows it to be old in the art to provide a venue in which the live actions of players participating in a sport are captured and subsequently presented as holographic images at a remote venue to provide a user-integrated experience. In other words, the user at a specified venue may view the holographic images to capture a simulated experience of witnessing a live sporting game. Given the teaching in Qualls with respect to the already-known ability to take advantage of holographic images in the sports arena, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Chan by configuring the processor to generate holographic images to a person practicing basketball shots in order to immerse the person with images that are indicative of a real sporting event in order to add realism to the practice session. Claims 17 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PUBS 2023/0059591 to Chan in view of US PUBS 2014/0092253 to Marty et al (hereinafter referred to as “Marty”) and also in view of USPN 5,330,175 to Kim. As to claims 17-18, Chan, as modified by Marty, does not explicitly disclose “wherein the processor is configured to receive a difficulty setting and adjust the basketball hoop based on the difficulty setting” (claim 17) and does not explicitly disclose “wherein the processor is configured to run one or more pre-programmed shooting routines and adjust the basketball hoop based on the one or more pre-programmed shooting routines” (claim 18). Kim shows it to be old in the art to adjust the position of a basketball hoop based upon a “pre-programmed shooting routine” or “difficulty setting”. Kim explains how a program may run a pre-programmed game simulating PIG or HORSE, which involves movement of the hoop to a certain position based upon the specific game requirements. Kim also explains that the hoop location may be altered based upon a predetermined amount of time or after a specific round of shots by the players, wherein time and the number of shots may both be associated with parameters associated with the difficulty of the game (i.e., see FIG. 8 and col. 7, lines 29-54 in Kim). In view of the teachings in Kim, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Chan by configuring the processor such that the location of the basketball hoop may be altered based upon either a pre-programmed routine or a difficulty setting in order to challenge the skill level of a player required to complete the game and to encourage added player participation. Claim 19 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over US PUBS 2023/0059591 to Chan in view of US PUBS 2014/0092253 to Marty et al (hereinafter referred to as “Marty”) and also in view of US PUBS 2016/0082340 to Adams. As to claim 19, Chan, as modified by Marty, does not explicitly disclose “wherein the processor is configured to detect a gesture or voice command and adjust the basketball hoop based on the gesture or voice command”. Of interest, it is noted that Marty does at least state that voice commands may be used to control the system (i.e., paragraph [0083]). Here, Adams teaches that gestures or voice commands may be used to change the position of the basketball hoop or to change other parameters of the training apparatus (i.e., [0392] and [0421] – [0422]). In view of the teaching in Marty and the additional teachings in Adams, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Chan by configuring the processor to accept a gesture or voice command to alter the location of the basketball hoop simply to provide an added convenience to the player(s). It is clear that a voice or gesture command would have enabled the practice session to continue without interruptions, wherein it is likely that interruptions would have been introduced if it were necessary for a player to physically move to an interface or to a control center located away from the activity area to alter the attributes of the game. Claim 20 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over USPN 10,688,362 to Sangalang in view of US PUBS 2023/0059591 to Chan and also in view of US PUBS 2014/0092253 to Marty et al (hereinafter referred to as “Marty”). As to claim 20, Sangalang discloses a system comprising an apparatus (FIG. 1), comprising: a frame (1); at least one rail (i.e., track 10) coupled to the frame (1); a sled (5) movably connected to the at least one rail (10; FIG. 2) and configured to move along a first axis in a z-direction (i.e., sled 5 is configured to roll along the track 10 in a direction toward and away from a player standing at a forward end of the apparatus); a shaft (i.e., mast 6) connected to the sled (5) in a perpendicular orientation relative to the at least one rail (10) and configured to rotate at least 180 degrees about a rotational axis in a vertical plane defined by a second axis perpendicular to the first axis (i.e., note vertical axis 15; see the arrows on plate 16 in FIG. 1 and col. 2, lines 59-63); a backboard (7) connected to the sled and configured move along the shaft in the vertical plane in a y-direction (i.e., col. 2, lines 51-58); and a basketball hoop (8) connected to the backboard (7). Sangalang lacks the features “a memory; a processor coupled with the memory and configured to: present an interface displaying a graphic of at least a portion of a basketball court; receive a selection of a location on the graphic of the at least a portion of the basketball court; and trigger an actuator coupled to the apparatus to orient the basketball hoop relative to a user's position based on the selected location”. Chan discloses a memory (i.e., paragraph [0056]); and a processor (i.e., again, see paragraph [0056]) coupled with the memory and configured to: receive a selection of a location on the graphic of the at least a portion of the basketball court (i.e., the projector 58 may project basketball court lines 60 on a portion of the court; see paragraph [0056]); and trigger an actuator coupled to a basketball hoop to orient the basketball hoop relative to a user's position based on the selected location (i.e., the hoop is directed to align with the projected basketball court lines; see paragraph [0057]). However, Chan differs from the claimed invention in that Chan does not explicitly disclose “an interface displaying a graphic of at least a portion of a basketball court” coupled to the processor. Marty teaches that it is old in the art to include an interface (i.e., display) wherein trajectory data and other information related to the court and to the practice session (i.e., paragraphs [0103], [0143], [0154] and claim 5 of Marty). In view of the teachings in Marty, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Chan by incorporating an interface in order to enable a player and/or coach/trainer to conveniently access and set-up the parameters of the practice session and to be able to conveniently review the shot tracking to monitor player performance. In view of the combined teachings of Chan and Marty, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art and before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to have modified the device in Sangalang by incorporating a memory, a processor, an interface and an actuator as part of the Sangalang apparatus in order to enhance the training experience and to provide the player with a multitude or additional options from which to choose a training routine or a specific game scenario. Here, combining the teachings of Sangalang, Chan and Marty would have involved combining prior art elements according to known methods to yield predictable results. KSR Int'l Co. v. Teleflex Inc., 550 U.S. 398, 415-421, 82 USPQ2d 1385, 1395-97 (2007). Here, each of Sangalang, Chan and Marty are directed towards basketball training systems. Combining the teachings of Chan and Marty within the device of Sangalang would clearly have enhanced the user/player experience while training. Further References of Interest The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. Note rebound bar (62) in FIG. 4 of Wu; Stolarz discusses holographic images; FIGS. 3A and 4E show an expanded or wider upper frame portion; See the Abstract and FIG. 1 in Ruppert; Johnson (‘355) discusses sensors and a processor. Also, see FIGS. 607; Anton discloses a control unit and sensors; FIG. 2 in Ilhan appears to show a back view of the frame assembly having a wider upper portion; FIG. 4 in Gallo shows a projector system that projects an image onto a flat surface; Campbell uses pre-programmed routines for a basketball practice system; Feldstein uses a return chute; Joseph (‘512) uses a processor and memory along with sensors and a ball ejector, of interest; He uses a programmable controller to move the backboard and hoop at various locations; Klinger uses a means for reducing the hoop diameter; In Yang, the hoop assembly may be moved longitudinally to various locations; See FIG. 3 in Sebek; Oliver shows a return chute (59) and a cross member (29); In Gomez, the location of the hoop may be changed; Fang teaches varying the diameter of a basketball hoop to increase accuracy; Arciniega uses a track to steer a movable post assembly for a basketball hoop and backboard combination; See FIG. 1 in White; See the Abstract and FIG. 1 in Cohen; Note FIG. 2 in Marsh; See FG. 1 in Keller; See FIG. 1 in Shisoff; and Peoples uses a hoop reducing structure for practice purposes. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to SEBASTIANO PASSANITI whose telephone number is (571)272-4413. The examiner can normally be reached 9:00AM-5:00PM Mon-Fri. 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, Nicholas Weiss can be reached at (571)-270-1775. 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. SEBASTIANO PASSANITI Primary Examiner Art Unit 3711 /SEBASTIANO PASSANITI/Primary Examiner, Art Unit 3711