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. Double Patenting The nonstatutory double patenting rejection is based on a judicially created doctrine grounded in public policy (a policy reflected in the statute) so as to prevent the unjustified or improper timewise extension of the “right to exclude” granted by a patent and to prevent possible harassment by multiple assignees. A nonstatutory double patenting rejection is appropriate where the conflicting claims are not identical, but at least one examined application claim is not patentably distinct from the reference claim(s) because the examined application claim is either anticipated by, or would have been obvious over, the reference claim(s). See, e.g., In re Berg , 140 F.3d 1428, 46 USPQ2d 1226 (Fed. Cir. 1998); In re Goodman , 11 F.3d 1046, 29 USPQ2d 2010 (Fed. Cir. 1993); In re Longi , 759 F.2d 887, 225 USPQ 645 (Fed. Cir. 1985); In re Van Ornum , 686 F.2d 937, 214 USPQ 761 (CCPA 1982); In re Vogel , 422 F.2d 438, 164 USPQ 619 (CCPA 1970); In re Thorington , 418 F.2d 528, 163 USPQ 644 (CCPA 1969). A timely filed terminal disclaimer in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(c) or 1.321(d) may be used to overcome an actual or provisional rejection based on nonstatutory double patenting provided the reference application or patent either is shown to be commonly owned with the examined application, or claims an invention made as a result of activities undertaken within the scope of a joint research agreement. See MPEP § 717.02 for applications subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA as explained in MPEP § 2159. See MPEP § 2146 et seq. for applications not subject to examination under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. A terminal disclaimer must be signed in compliance with 37 CFR 1.321(b). The filing of a terminal disclaimer by itself is not a complete reply to a nonstatutory double patenting (NSDP) rejection. A complete reply requires that the terminal disclaimer be accompanied by a reply requesting reconsideration of the prior Office action. Even where the NSDP rejection is provisional the reply must be complete. See MPEP § 804, subsection I.B.1. For a reply to a non-final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.111(a). For a reply to final Office action, see 37 CFR 1.113(c). A request for reconsideration while not provided for in 37 CFR 1.113(c) may be filed after final for consideration. See MPEP §§ 706.07(e) and 714.13. The USPTO Internet website contains terminal disclaimer forms which may be used. Please visit www.uspto.gov/patent/patents-forms. The actual filing date of the application in which the form is filed determines what form (e.g., PTO/SB/25, PTO/SB/26, PTO/AIA/25, or PTO/AIA/26) should be used. A web-based eTerminal Disclaimer may be filled out completely online using web-screens. An eTerminal Disclaimer that meets all requirements is auto-processed and approved immediately upon submission. For more information about eTerminal Disclaimers, refer to www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/applying-online/eterminal-disclaimer . Claims 1-9 and 18-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 9, 11-24 and 24 of copending Application No. 18/195,001 in view of McNelis (8,706,440) . In this instant case, claims 1, 9, 11-24 and 24 of copending Application No. 18/195,001 recite a method and a system for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations and that is configured to identify an occurrence of a shot discharge based on the received input signals, as specified in claims 1-9 and 18-26 of the instant application except for the steps of : receiving, by an event detection module, a plurality of input signals over a sample window of time from a first inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured on the firearm; assigning the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time; creating and running an identification algorithm at a machine learning module of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals; and identifying an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm . Since McNelis teaches a method and a system (See fig. 1) for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (i.e. sensors) {101, 102} disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module 104 that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations (i.e. sensor data from an exemplary weapon) (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B and col. 9 lines 21-28) and that is configured to: assign the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B) ; create and run an identification algorithm at a machine learning module 104 of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals (i.e. creating/storing firing signatures for various types of weapons that are used to identify a shot discharge of an firearm) (See col. 10 line 64 to col. 11 line 19) ; and identify an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm (See fig. 6, steps 604-605, 608 and col. 11 line 47 to col. 12 line 22, col. 13 lines 1-18); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the McNelis’ teachings in modifying the method and system of claims 1-9 and 18-26 of the instant application, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various ways/methods to detect the discharge of the firearm. Claims 1-9 and 18-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1, 11 and 13-23 of copending Application No. 18/195,409 in view of McNelis (8,706,440). In this instant case, claims 1, 11 and 13-23 of copending Application No. 18/195,409 recite a method and a system for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations and that is configured to identify an occurrence of a shot discharge based on the received input signals, as specified in claims 1-9 and 18-26 of the instant application except for the steps of: receiving, by an event detection module, a plurality of input signals over a sample window of time from a first inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured on the firearm; assigning the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time; creating and running an identification algorithm at a machine learning module of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals; and identifying an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm . Since McNelis teaches a method and a system (See fig. 1) for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (i.e. sensors) {101, 102} disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module 104 that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations (i.e. sensor data from an exemplary weapon) (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B and col. 9 lines 21-28) and that is configured to: assign the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B) ; create and run an identification algorithm at a machine learning module 104 of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals (i.e. creating/storing firing signatures for various types of weapons that are used to identify a shot discharge of an firearm) (See col. 10 line 64 to col. 11 line 19) ; and identify an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm (See fig. 6, steps 604-605, 608 and col. 11 line 47 to col. 12 line 22, col. 13 lines 1-18); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the McNelis’ teachings in modifying the method and system of claims 1-9 and 18-26 of the instant application, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various ways/methods to detect the discharge of the firearm. Claims 1-3, 7-9 and 18-26 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1-5, 12 and 14-20 of copending Application No. 18/195,445 in view of McNelis (8,706,440). In this instant case, claims 1-5, 12 and 14-20 of copending Application No. 18/195,445 recite a method and a system for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations and that is configured to identify an occurrence of a shot discharge based on the received input signals, as specified in claims 1-3, 7-9 and 18-26 of the instant application except for the steps of: receiving, by an event detection module, a plurality of input signals over a sample window of time from a first inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured on the firearm; assigning the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time; creating and running an identification algorithm at a machine learning module of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals; and identifying an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm . Since McNelis teaches a method and a system (See fig. 1) for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (i.e. sensors) {101, 102} disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module 104 that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations (i.e. sensor data from an exemplary weapon) (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B and col. 9 lines 21-28) and that is configured to: assign the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B) ; create and run an identification algorithm at a machine learning module 104 of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals (i.e. creating/storing firing signatures for various types of weapons that are used to identify a shot discharge of an firearm) (See col. 10 line 64 to col. 11 line 19) ; and identify an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm (See fig. 6, steps 604-605, 608 and col. 11 line 47 to col. 12 line 22, col. 13 lines 1-18); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the McNelis’ teachings in modifying the method and system of claims 1-3, 7-9 and 18-26 of the instant application, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various ways/methods to detect the discharge of the firearm. Claims 1, 10 and 18 are provisionally rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting as being unpatentable over claims 1 and 15-16 of copending Application No. 18/195,532 in view of McNelis (8,706,440). In this instant case, claims 1 and 15-16 of copending Application No. 18/195,532 recite a method and a system for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations and that is configured to identify an occurrence of a shot discharge based on the received input signals, as specified in claims 1, 10 and 18 of the instant application except for the steps of: receiving, by an event detection module, a plurality of input signals over a sample window of time from a first inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured on the firearm; assigning the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time; creating and running an identification algorithm at a machine learning module of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals; and identifying an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm . Since McNelis teaches a method and a system (See fig. 1) for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (i.e. sensors) {101, 102} disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module 104 that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations (i.e. sensor data from an exemplary weapon) (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B and col. 9 lines 21-28) and that is configured to: assign the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B) ; create and run an identification algorithm at a machine learning module 104 of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals (i.e. creating/storing firing signatures for various types of weapons that are used to identify a shot discharge of an firearm) (See col. 10 line 64 to col. 11 line 19) ; and identify an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm (See fig. 6, steps 604-605, 608 and col. 11 line 47 to col. 12 line 22, col. 13 lines 1-18); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the McNelis’ teachings in modifying the method and system of claims 1, 10 and 18 of the instant application, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various ways/methods to detect the discharge of the firearm. This is a provisional nonstatutory double patenting rejection. Claims 1-7 and 18 -26 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claim s 1, 8-9 and 11-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,965,704 in view of McNelis (8,706,440) . In this instant case, claims 1, 8-9 and 11-18 of U.S. Patent No. 11,965,704 recite a method and a system for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations and that is configured to identify an occurrence of a shot discharge based on the received input signals, as specified in claims 1-7 and 18-26 of the instant application except for the steps of: receiving, by an event detection module, a plurality of input signals over a sample window of time from a first inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured on the firearm; assigning the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time; creating and running an identification algorithm at a machine learning module of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals; and identifying an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm . Since McNelis teaches a method and a system (See fig. 1) for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (i.e. sensors) {101, 102} disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module 104 that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations (i.e. sensor data from an exemplary weapon) (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B and col. 9 lines 21-28) and that is configured to: assign the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B) ; create and run an identification algorithm at a machine learning module 104 of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals (i.e. creating/storing firing signatures for various types of weapons that are used to identify a shot discharge of an firearm) (See col. 10 line 64 to col. 11 line 19) ; and identify an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm (See fig. 6, steps 604-605, 608 and col. 11 line 47 to col. 12 line 22, col. 13 lines 1-18); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the McNelis’ teachings in modifying the method and system of claims 1-7 and 18-26 of the instant application, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various ways/methods to detect the discharge of the firearm. Claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1 , 10-11 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,982,502 in view of McNelis (8,706,440) . In this instant case, claims 1 , 10-11 and 19 of U.S. Patent No. 11,9 82,502 recite a method and a system for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations and that is configured to identify an occurrence of a shot discharge based on the received input signals, as specified in claims 1 , 10 and 18 of the instant application except for the steps of: receiving, by an event detection module, a plurality of input signals over a sample window of time from a first inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured on the firearm; assigning the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time; creating and running an identification algorithm at a machine learning module of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals; and identifying an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm . Since McNelis teaches a method and a system (See fig. 1) for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (i.e. sensors) {101, 102} disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module 104 that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations (i.e. sensor data from an exemplary weapon) (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B and col. 9 lines 21-28) and that is configured to: assign the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B) ; create and run an identification algorithm at a machine learning module 104 of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals (i.e. creating/storing firing signatures for various types of weapons that are used to identify a shot discharge of an firearm) (See col. 10 line 64 to col. 11 line 19) ; and identify an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm (See fig. 6, steps 604-605, 608 and col. 11 line 47 to col. 12 line 22, col. 13 lines 1-18); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the McNelis’ teachings in modifying the method and system of claims 1 , 10 and 18 of the instant application, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various ways/methods to detect the discharge of the firearm. Claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1, 10-11 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,988,474 in view of McNelis (8,706,440) . In this instant case, claims 1, 10-11 and 20 of U.S. Patent No. 11,988,474 recite a method and a system for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations and that is configured to identify an occurrence of a shot discharge based on the received input signals, as specified in claims 1, 10 and 18 of the instant application except for the steps of: receiving, by an event detection module, a plurality of input signals over a sample window of time from a first inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured on the firearm; assigning the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time; creating and running an identification algorithm at a machine learning module of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals; and identifying an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm . Since McNelis teaches a method and a system (See fig. 1) for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (i.e. sensors) {101, 102} disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module 104 that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations (i.e. sensor data from an exemplary weapon) (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B and col. 9 lines 21-28) and that is configured to: assign the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B) ; create and run an identification algorithm at a machine learning module 104 of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals (i.e. creating/storing firing signatures for various types of weapons that are used to identify a shot discharge of an firearm) (See col. 10 line 64 to col. 11 line 19) ; and identify an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm (See fig. 6, steps 604-605, 608 and col. 11 line 47 to col. 12 line 22, col. 13 lines 1-18); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the McNelis’ teachings in modifying the method and system of claims 1, 10 and 18 of the instant application, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various ways/methods to detect the discharge of the firearm. Claims 1, 10 and 18 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1, 7-8, 10 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,262 in view of McNelis (8,706,440) . In this instant case, claims 1, 7-8, 10 and 18 of U.S. Patent No. 12,066,262 recite a method and a system for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations and that is configured to identify an occurrence of a shot discharge based on the received input signals, as specified in claims 1, 10 and 18 of the instant application except for the steps of: receiving, by an event detection module, a plurality of input signals over a sample window of time from a first inertial measurement unit (IMU) configured on the firearm; assigning the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time; creating and running an identification algorithm at a machine learning module of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals; and identifying an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm . Since McNelis teaches a method and a system (See fig. 1) for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (i.e. sensors) {101, 102} disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module 104 that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations (i.e. sensor data from an exemplary weapon) (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B and col. 9 lines 21-28) and that is configured to: assign the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B) ; create and run an identification algorithm at a machine learning module 104 of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals (i.e. creating/storing firing signatures for various types of weapons that are used to identify a shot discharge of an firearm) (See col. 10 line 64 to col. 11 line 19) ; and identify an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm (See fig. 6, steps 604-605, 608 and col. 11 line 47 to col. 12 line 22, col. 13 lines 1-18); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the McNelis’ teachings in modifying the method and system of claims 1, 10 and 18 of the instant application, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various ways/methods to detect the discharge of the firearm. Claims 1, 5-7 and 10-17 are rejected on the ground of nonstatutory double patenting a s being unpatentable over claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,971,230 . Although the claims at issue are not identical, they are not patentably distinct from each other because claims 1-11 of U.S. Patent No. 11,971,230 recite similar claimed subject matters as specified in claims 1, 5-7 and 10-17 of the instant application, with various wordings . Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 102 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. Claim s 1 and 18 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 102 (a)(1) as being anticipated by McNelis (8,706,440) . Regarding claim 18, McNelis teaches a system 100 (See fig. 1) for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm, the system comprising: an inertial measurement unit (IMU) (i.e. sensors) {101, 102} disposed on the firearm that senses accelerations; an event detection module 104 that receives a plurality of input signals from the IMU indicative of the accelerations (i.e. sensor data from an exemplary weapon) (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B and col. 9 lines 21-28) and that is configured to: assign the plurality of input signals to sample event candidates (i.e. single shot and/or burst shot) at respective windows of time (See figs. 4A, 4B, 5A, 5B) ; create and run an identification algorithm at a machine learning module 104 of the event detection module using the plurality of input signals (i.e. creating/storing firing signatures for various types of weapons that are used to identify a shot discharge of an firearm by comparing received input signals from the IMU with the created firing signatures ) (See col. 10 line 64 to col. 11 line 19) ; and identify an occurrence of a shot discharge at the machine learning module based on an output of the identification algorithm (See fig. 6, steps 604-605, 608 and col. 11 line 47 to col. 12 line 22, col. 13 lines 1-18) . Claim 1 is rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claim 18, as method. 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. Claim s 2-3 and 19-21 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNelis (8,706.440) in view of Kley (9,470,485) . Regarding claims 19-21, McNelis discloses as cited in claim 18. However, McNelis does not explicitly mention that a safety selector switch that sends a safety selector switch signal indicative of a position of a safety selector on the firearm; wherein the event detection module identifies the occurrence of a shot discharge further based on the safety selector switch signal and a trigger pull sensor assembly senses mechanical movement of a trigger of the firearm, the trigger pull sensor communicating a trigger actuation signal to the signal processing module corresponding to a position of the trigger, wherein the event detection signal is further based on the trigger actuation signal . Since Kley suggests a similar system for monitoring operations of a firearm including a discharge, comprising: a safety selector switch that sends a safety selector switch signal indicative of a position of a safety selector on the firearm to a control logic (i.e. controller) (See figs. 4-5 and col. 6 lines 38-44); and a trigger pull sensor assembly 410 that senses mechanical movement of a trigger of the firearm (i.e. trigger 410 being pressed) , and sends a trigger actuation signal to the control logic corresponding to a position of the trigger (See figs. 4-5 and col. 5 lines 24-28, lines 38-40); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to utilize the Kley’s teachings in modifying the McNelis’ system, for the advantage of enhancing the capability of the system in detecting the discharge of the firearm. Claims 2-3 are rejected for the same reasons as set forth in claims 19-20, as method. Claims 4-5 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNelis & Kley as applied to claim 3 above, and further in view of Johnson (7,100,437) . Regarding claim 4, McNelis & Kley disclose as cited in claim 3. However, they do not mention that receiving, by the event detection module, an audio input signal from an audio sensor configured on the firearm; and wherein the identifying is further based on the audio input signal . Since, utilizing audio sensor to detect a discharge of a firearm is known in the art as shown by Johnson (See col. 14 lines 50-51); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of McNelis & Kley with an audio sensor, for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various types of sensors to detect the discharge of the firearm. Regarding claim 5, McNelis & Kley & Johnson disclose as cited in claim 4. McNelis further discloses receiving, by the event detection module, a pressure input signal from a pressure sensor configured on the firearm (See fig. 6, step 602) ; and wherein the identifying is further based on the pressure input signal (See fig. 6, steps 604, 608 and col. 11 lines 47-58). Claim 6 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNelis & Kley & Johnson as applied to claim 5 above, and further in view of Packer (8,046,946) . Regarding claim 6, McNelis & Kley & Johnson disclose as cited in claim 5. However, they do not mention that receiving, by the event detection module, a magnetic field signal from a magnetometer configured on the firearm; and wherein the identifying is further based on the magnetic field signal . Since, utilizing magnetometer (i.e. magnetic sensor) {120, 122} to detect a discharge of a firearm is known in the art as shown by Packer (See figs. 1-3 and col. 3 lines 26-50); therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to modify the system of McNelis & Kley & Johnson with a magnetometer (i.e. magnetic sensor), for the advantage of expanding the capability of the system to various types of sensors to detect the discharge of the firearm. Claim 7 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McNelis (8,706,440) in view of Johnson (7,143,644) . Regarding claim 7, McNelis discloses as cited in claim 1. However, McNelis does not mention that receiving a thermal input signal from a thermal sensor configured on the firearm wherein the identification algorithm is further configured to: determine whether a temperature threshold has been exceeded based on the thermal input signal and generate an alert indicative of the temperature threshold being exceeded . Since Johnson does disclose a similar system for providing discharge monitoring of a firearm , wherein the event detection module is configured (with a thermal sensor) to determine a temperature based on the event detection signal (See figs. 4, 8A, 16 and col. 6 lines 37-45, col. 7 line 57 to col. 8 line 3) and Official Notice taken by the examiner that providing alert indicative when a certain monitoring parameter exceeds a preset threshold is a known technique in the art; therefore, it would have been obvious to one skilled in the art to configure the system of McNelis & Johnson such that it generates an alert indicative of the temperature threshold being exceeded , for the advantage of alerting user to take appropriate action. Allowable Subject Matter Claims 8-17 and 22 -26 would be allowable if rewritten to overcome the nonstatutory double patenting rejection(s), set forth in this Office action and to include all of the limitations of the base claim and any intervening claims. Regarding claims 8-9, McNelis discloses as cited in claim 1. However, McNelis fails to disclose the step of receiving, by the event detection module, a second plurality of input signals over the sample window of time from a second IMU configured on the firearm, wherein the first IMU is configured for a first gravity sensitivity and the second IMU is configured for a second gravity sensitivity, wherein the first and second sensitivities are distinct . Regarding claims 10-17, McNelis discloses as cited in claim 1. However, McNelis fails to disclose the plurality of input signals include acceleration and rotation input signals from the first IMU and the steps of: assigning respective acceleration and rotation input signals to sample event candidates at respective windows of time of the sample window of time; comparing the acceleration signals of the sampled event candidates to a discharge acceleration template that represents a confirmed weapon discharge event; identifying a subset of accepted accelerations from the sampled event candidates that satisfy the discharge acceleration template; comparing a first rotation input signal from the sample window of time associated with each accepted acceleration in the subset to a first rotation template that represents a confirmed weapon discharge event; determining whether the sampled event candidate is a discharge event based on satisfying both the discharge acceleration template and the first rotation template . Regarding claims 22-26, McNelis & Kley disclose as cited in claim 21. However, they do not mention that the trigger pull sensor assembly further comprises: a contact sensor disposed on the grip housing configured to move between a depressed position and an extended position; a grip screw that threadably mates to a body of the firearm, the grip screw defining a pocket that at least partially receives the contact sensor; a plunger assembly disposed in the grip screw and that mechanically communicates motion of the trigger into motion of the contact sensor. The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to applicant's disclosure. See PTO-892 for a listing of cited prior arts of record. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT TUAN A TRAN whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-7858 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT Mon-Fri: 7:30 AM - 5:00 PM . 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 Wesley Kim can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-7867 . 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. /TUAN A TRAN/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2648