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. DETAILED ACTION Claims 1-20 are pending. Examiner Notes Examiner cites particular paragraphs and/or columns and lines in the references as applied to Applicant’s claims for the convenience of the Applicant. Although the specified citations are representative of the teachings in the art and are applied to the specific limitations within the individual claim, other passages and figures may apply as well. It is respectfully requested that, in preparing responses, the Applicant fully consider the references in entirety as potentially teaching all or part of the claimed invention, as well as the context of the passage as taught by the prior art or disclosed by the examiner. The prompt development of a clear issue requires that the replies of the Applicant meet the objections to and rejections of the claims. Applicant should also specifically point out the support for any amendments made to the disclosure. See MPEP § 2163.06. 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 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. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 101 35 U.S.C. 101 reads as follows: Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title. Claims 1- 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 101 because the claimed invention is directed to a judicial exception (an abstract idea) without significantly more. Step 1 : The claim is a process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter: Claim 1. A method for processing data message flows using a plurality of non-uniform memory access (NUMA) nodes of a processing system, the method comprising . Step 2A Prong One : The claim recites an abstract idea because it includes limitations that can be considered mental processes (concepts performed in the human mind including an observation, evaluation, judgment, and/or opinion). If a claim limitation, under its broadest reasonable interpretation, covers performance of the limitation in the human mind or via pen and paper, then it falls within the “Mental Processes” grouping of abstract ideas. Accordingly, the claim recites an abstract idea: determining whether the first NUMA node should perform a middlebox service operation on the data message flow that is destined to the endpoint application ( abstract idea mental process ) . Step 2A Prong Two : The abstract idea is not integrated into a practical application because the abstract idea is recited but for generically recited additional computer elements (i.e. data storage, processor, memory, computer readable medium, etc.) which do not add meaningful limitations to the abstract idea amounting to simply implementing the abstract idea on a generic computer using generic computing hardware and/or software (e.g. generally linking the use of the judicial exception to a particular technological environment or field of use (see MPEP 2106.05(h)). Mere instructions to apply an exception using a generic computer component cannot provide an inventive concept. The generic computing components are recited at a high-level of generality such that they amount to no more than mere instructions to apply the exception using the recited generic computer components. Accordingly, these additional elements do not integrate the abstract idea into a practical application because they do not impose any meaningful limits on practicing the abstract idea: Claim 1. A method for processing data message flows using a plurality of non-uniform memory access (NUMA) nodes of a processing system ( generic computing components ) , the method comprising: at a load balancing application associated with a first NUMA node of the plurality of NUMA nodes, each NUMA node comprising a local memory and a set of processors that can access data from local memories of other NUMA nodes ( generic computing components ) : receiving a data message flow destined for an endpoint application ( generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of receiving data/information ) ; based on a determination that the first NUMA node should not process the data message flow, directing the data message flow to a second NUMA node for performing the middlebox service operation ( generic computing components performing extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information ) . Step 2B : The claim includes limitations which can be considered extra-solution activity (see MPEP 2106.05(g)) insufficient to amount to significantly more than the abstract idea because the additional limitations only perform at least one of collecting, gathering, displaying, generating, modifying, updating, storing, retrieving, sending, and receiving data/information data which are well-understood, routine, conventional computer functions as recognized by the court decisions listed in MPEP § 2106.05(d)II. The claim further includes limitations that do not integrate the judicial exception into a practical application because they merely recite the words "apply it" (or an equivalent) with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using a computer as a tool to perform an abstract idea, as discussed in MPEP § 2106.05(f) . Therefore, the claim, and its limitations when considered separately and in combination, is directed to patent ineligible subject matter: Claim 1. A method for processing data message flows using a plurality of non-uniform memory access (NUMA) nodes of a processing system, the method comprising: at a load balancing application associated with a first NUMA node of the plurality of NUMA nodes, each NUMA node comprising a local memory and a set of processors that can access data from local memories of other NUMA nodes: receiving a data message flow destined for an endpoint application ( extra-solution activity of receiving data/information ) ; based on a determination that the first NUMA node should not process the data message flow, directing the data message flow to a second NUMA node for performing the middlebox service operation ( extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information ) . Claim 2. The method of claim 1, wherein the determining is based on policies that assign different priority levels to different types of flows and assigns a first set of higher priority flow types to the first NUMA node while assigning a second set of lower priority flow types to the second NUMA node ( abstract idea mental process ) . Claim 3. The method of claim 2, wherein the policies specify latency requirements of different flows, and the first set of higher priority flow types comprise flows requiring a low latency while the second set of lower priority flow types comprise flows that do not require a low latency ( abstract idea mental process ) . Claim 4. The method of claim 2, wherein the policies specify bandwidth requirements of different flows, and the first set of higher priority flow types comprise flows requiring a high bandwidth, while the second set of lower priority flow types comprise flows that do not require a high bandwidth ( abstract idea mental process ) . Claim 5. The method of claim 2, wherein the policies are received from a set of endpoint applications including the endpoint application ( extra-solution activity of receiving data/information ) . Claim 6. The method of claim 2, wherein determining whether the first NUMA node should perform the middlebox service operation on the data message flow comprises determining whether the first NUMA node meets a particular policy of the endpoint application ( abstract idea mental process ) . Claim 7. The method of claim 6, wherein the data message flow is directed to the second NUMA node after determining that the first NUMA node does not meet the particular policy of the endpoint application ( extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information ) . Claim 8. The method of claim 7 further comprising, before directing the data message flow to the second NUMA node, determining that the second NUMA node meets the particular policy of the endpoint application ( abstract idea mental process ) . Claim 9. The method of claim 1, wherein the middlebox service operation is one of a firewall operation, a load balancing operation, and a network address translation service operation ( abstract idea mental process ) . Claim 10. The method of claim 1, wherein each NUMA node accesses the data from the other local memories using a processor interconnect bridge that connects the set of processors of the NUMA node to another set of processors of another NUMA node ( extra-solution activity of retrieving data/information ) . Claim 11. The method of claim 10, wherein the processor interconnect bridge is one of a QuickPath Interconnect bridge or an Ultra Path Interconnect Bridge ( generic computing components ) . Claim 12. The method of claim 1, wherein the data message flow is directed to the second NUMA node for performing the middlebox service operation and for forwarding the data message flow to the endpoint application ( extra-solution activity of sending/transmitting data/information ) . Claim 13. The method of claim 1, wherein the second NUMA node performs the middlebox service operation on the data message flow using at least one of (i) data stored at a local memory of the second NUMA node and (ii) data stored at a local memory of another NUMA node ( extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea ) . Claim 14. The method of claim 13, wherein the local memory of the other NUMA node is a local memory of the first NUMA node ( generic computing components ) . Claim 15. The method of claim 1 further comprising creating a record associating the data message flow with the second NUMA node ( extra-solution activity of generating data/information ) . Claim 16. The method of claim 15 further comprising storing the record in the local memory of the second NUMA node ( extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information ) . Claim 17. The method of claim 16 further comprising storing the record in each of the plurality of NUMA nodes ( extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information ) . Claim 18. The method of claim 16, wherein the record specifies a flow identifier (ID) identifying the data message flow and a NUMA node ID identifying the second NUMA node ( extra-solution activity of saving/storing/recording data/information ) . Claim 19. The method of claim 1, wherein the load balancing application is a first instance of a distributed load balancing application implemented by a plurality of instances operating on the plurality of NUMA nodes ( extra-solution activity of merely reciting the words "apply it" or an equivalent with the judicial exception, or merely including instructions to implement an abstract idea on a computer, or merely using the computer as a tool to perform the abstract idea ) . As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale. 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 -10, 1 2 -14, and 20 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexis et al. (US 2021/0320901) (hereinafter Alexis) in view of Lukianov (US 2023/0305874) . As per claim 1, Alexis primarily teaches the invention as claimed including a method for processing data message flows ([0025] fl ow processing module may control a flow of data packets through the virtual firewall ) using a plurality of non-uniform memory access (NUMA) nodes of a processing system ([0030] a quantity of non-uniform memory access (NUMA) nodes that will be associated with the virtual firewall ) , the method comprising: at a load balancing application associated with a first NUMA node of the plurality of NUMA nodes ([0030] whether an Irqbalance is enabled/disabled e.g., a process that balances the CPU load generated by interrupts across a set of CPUs ) , receiving a data message flow destined for an endpoint application ([0067] e ndpoint device includes one or more devices capable of receiving and/or providing information over a network, and/or capable of generating, storing, and/or processing information received and/or provided over the network and [0073] a pplication includes one or more software applications that may be provided to or accessed by endpoint device ) ; determining whether the first NUMA node should perform a middlebox service operation on the data message flow that is destined to the endpoint application ([0042] resource availability check may be performed to determine that the computing device on which the virtual firewall is to be implemented satisfies certain minimum requirements for implementing the virtual firewall. For example, the resource availability check may determine whether NUMA socket/hyper-threading is enabled/disabled, whether the virtual firewall is to be implemented on a NUMA associated with a NIC port, and/or the like ) ; and based on a determination that the first NUMA node should not process the data message flow, directing the data message flow to a second NUMA node for performing the middlebox service operation ([0042] i f the resource availability check is not successfully performed e.g., the host platform determines that the computing device does not satisfy the minimum requirements, the host platform may determine to deploy the virtual firewall on a different computing device, output information indicating that the computing device does not satisfy the minimum requirements, prevent the virtual firewall from being deployed on the computing device, and/or the like ) . Alexis does not explicitly teach each NUMA node comprising a local memory and a set of processors that can access data from local memories of other NUMA nodes . However, Lukianov teaches each NUMA node comprising a local memory and a set of processors that can access data from local memories of other NUMA nodes ([0016] multiple interconnected NUMA nodes, each of which possesses its own processor and its own local memory. The physical configuration of the processor device enables each NUMA node to access its local memory faster than it can access the non-local memory of other NUMA nodes and [0022] NUMA nodes are interconnected by an interconnect bus that enables each of the NUMA nodes to access the local memory of the other NUMA nodes ). Lukianov and Alexis are both concerned with NUMA nodes and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alexis in view of Lukianov because it would provide a way to enable each NUMA node to access its local memory faster than it can access the non-local memory of other NUMA nodes. As a result, memory access bottlenecks can be reduced or eliminated by the processor device assigning processor threads to NUMA nodes associated with the memory that is allocated to the processor threads. As per claim 5 , Alexis further teaches wherein the policies ([0023] routing policies ) are received from a set of endpoint applications including the endpoint application ( [0067] e ndpoint device includes one or more devices capable of receiving and/or providing information over a network, and/or capable of generating, storing, and/or processing information received and/or provided over the network and [0073] a pplication includes one or more software applications that may be provided to or accessed by endpoint device ) . As per claim 6 , Alexis further teaches wherein determining whether the first NUMA node should perform the middlebox service operation on the data message flow comprises determining whether the first NUMA node meets a particular policy of the endpoint application ( [0023] routing policies and [0042] re source availability check may be performed to determine that the computing device on which the virtual firewall is to be implemented satisfies certain minimum requirements for implementing the virtual firewall. For example, the resource availability check may determine whether NUMA socket/hyper-threading is enabled/disabled, whether the virtual firewall is to be implemented on a NUMA associated with a NIC port, and/or the like ) . As per claim 7 , Alexis further teaches wherein the data message flow is directed to the second NUMA node after determining that the first NUMA node does not meet the particular policy of the endpoint application ( [0023] routing policies and [0042] i f the resource availability check is not successfully performed e.g., the host platform determines that the computing device does not satisfy the minimum requirements, the host platform may determine to deploy the virtual firewall on a different computing device, output information indicating that the computing device does not satisfy the minimum requirements, prevent the virtual firewall from being deployed on the computing device, and/or the like ) . As per claim 8 , Alexis further teaches further comprising, before directing the data message flow to the second NUMA node, determining that the second NUMA node meets the particular policy of the endpoint application ([0023] routing policies and [0042] i f the resource availability check is not successfully performed e.g., the host platform determines that the computing device does not satisfy the minimum requirements, the host platform may determine to deploy the virtual firewall on a different computing device, output information indicating that the computing device does not satisfy the minimum requirements, prevent the virtual firewall from being deployed on the computing device, and/or the like ) . As per claim 9 , Alexis further teaches wherein the middlebox service operation is one of a firewall operation, a load balancing operation, and a network address translation service operation ( [0042] resource availability check may be performed to determine that the computing device on which the virtual firewall is to be implemented satisfies certain minimum requirements for implementing the virtual firewall. For example, the resource availability check may determine whether NUMA socket/hyper-threading is enabled/disabled, whether the virtual firewall is to be implemented on a NUMA associated with a NIC port, and/or the like ) . As per claim 10 , Lukianov teaches wherein each NUMA node accesses the data from the other local memories using a processor interconnect bridge that connects the set of processors of the NUMA node to another set of processors of another NUMA node ( [0022] NUMA nodes are interconnected by an interconnect bus that enables each of the NUMA nodes to access the local memory of the other NUMA nodes ) . As per claim 12 , Alexis further teaches wherein the data message flow is directed to the second NUMA node for performing the middlebox service operation and for forwarding the data message flow to the endpoint application ([0026] packet forwarding module may control the forwarding of data packets to a destination device. For example, the packet forwarding module may apply one or more routing policies to the input and/or the output of a virtual network interface to forward data packets processed by the virtual firewall toward a destination devic e ) . As per claim 13 , Lukianov teaches wherein the second NUMA node performs the middlebox service operation on the data message flow using at least one of (i) data stored at a local memory of the second NUMA node and (ii) data stored at a local memory of another NUMA node ( [0016] multiple interconnected NUMA nodes, each of which possesses its own processor and its own local memory. The physical configuration of the processor device enables each NUMA node to access its local memory faster than it can access the non-local memory of other NUMA nodes ) . As per claim 14 , Lukianov teaches wherein the local memory of the other NUMA node is a local memory of the first NUMA node ([0016] multiple interconnected NUMA nodes, each of which possesses its own processor and its own local memory. The physical configuration of the processor device enables each NUMA node to access its local memory faster than it can access the non-local memory of other NUMA nodes and [0022] NUMA nodes are interconnected by an interconnect bus that enables each of the NUMA nodes to access the local memory of the other NUMA nodes ) . As per claim 19 , Alexis further teaches wherein the load balancing application is a first instance of a distributed load balancing application implemented by a plurality of instances operating on the plurality of NUMA nodes ([0030] whether a n Irqbalance is enabled/disabled e .g., a process that balances the CPU load generated by interrupts across a set of CPUs and [0078] two or more devices may be implemented as multiple, distributed devices ) . As per claim 20, it has similar limitations as claim 1 and is therefore rejected using the same rationale. Claim 2 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Saripalli (US 2012/0331227) . As per claim 2 , Alexis in view of Lukianov do not explicitly teach wherein the determining is based on policies that assign different priority levels to different types of flows and assigns a first set of higher priority flow types to the first NUMA node while assigning a second set of lower priority flow types to the second NUMA node. However, Saripalli teaches wherein the determining is based on policies that assign different priority levels to different types of flows and assigns a first set of higher priority flow types to the first NUMA node while assigning a second set of lower priority flow types to the second NUMA node ([0002] employ data center bridging protocols to control and prioritize different types and/or flows of network traffic among the nodes ) . Saripalli and Alexis are both concerned with computer node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Saripalli because it would provide a way of appropriately selecting and/or adjusting the criteria and/or values thereof upon which one or more policies may be based to reflect and/or implement the respective priorities and/or the relative priorities established among the network traffic. Accordingly, and advantageously, one or more policies may result in, at least in part, a relatively lower cache miss probability occurring in connection with respective information associated with relatively higher priority network traffic compared to a relatively higher cache miss probability that may occur in connection with other respective information that may be associated with relatively lower priority network traffic. This may result, for example, from appropriate reduction in latencies in processing higher priority traffic compared to lower priority traffic. Claim 3-4 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Saripalli in view of Das et al. (US 2007/0149129) (hereinafter Das) . As per claim 3 , Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Saripalli do not explicitly teach wherein the policies specify latency requirements of different flows, and the first set of higher priority flow types comprise flows requiring a low latency while the second set of lower priority flow types comprise flows that do not require a low latency. However, Das teaches wherein the policies specify latency requirements of different flows, and the first set of higher priority flow types comprise flows requiring a low latency while the second set of lower priority flow types comprise flows that do not require a low latency (fig. 40 different data flow types are associated with different latencies ) . Das and Alexis are both concerned with computer node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Saripalli in view of Das because it would provide a way to efficiently communicate the varying needs of individual wireless terminals for uplink traffic channel resources. This can achieve reporting diversity while accommodating small information report size and would facilitate a wide range of quantization schemes such that a particular quantization scheme well suited to a wireless terminal at a particular time can be selected and used by the wireless terminal to communicate backlog information. It would also provide for efficient reporting to make use of available information already being communicated between the wireless terminal and base station such as quality information, thus expanding reporting options while retaining a small report bit size. As per claim 4 , Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Saripalli do not explicitly teach wherein the policies specify bandwidth requirements of different flows, and the first set of higher priority flow types comprise flows requiring a high bandwidth, while the second set of lower priority flow types comprise flows that do not require a high bandwidth. However, Das teaches wherein the policies specify bandwidth requirements of different flows, and the first set of higher priority flow types comprise flows requiring a high bandwidth, while the second set of lower priority flow types comprise flows that do not require a high bandwidth (fig. 40 different data flow types are associated with different bandwidths ). Das and Alexis are both concerned with computer node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Saripalli in view of Das because it would provide a way to customize and/or optimize request queue mapping to match the different types of data being communicated via uplink traffic channel segments at any time. Claim 11 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Bernat et al. (US 2017/0289024) (hereinafter Bernat) . As per claim 11 , Alexis in view of Lukianov do not explicitly teach wherein the processor interconnect bridge is one of a QuickPath Interconnect bridge or an Ultra Path Interconnect Bridge. However, Bernat teaches wherein the processor interconnect bridge is one of a QuickPath Interconnect bridge or an Ultra Path Interconnect Bridge ([0036] data may be transmitted between the NUMA domains via an interconnect e.g., an UltraPath Interconnect (UPI), a QuickPath Interconnect (QPI), an Unified Media Interface (UMI) interconnect, or the like ) . Bernat and Alexis are both concerned with NUMA computing architecture and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Bernat because it would provide for a host fabric interface configured to facilitate the transmission of data to/from network node s , monitor quality of service levels of resources of the network node used to process and transmit the data, and detect a throttling condition based on a result of the monitored quality of service levels for reducing the injection rate or stopping the injection altogether. Accordingly, such a response may be a suitable solution for throttle message types not supported by the fabric architecture of the network nodes . Claim 1 5 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Kancherla et al. (US 2019/0036819) (hereinafter Kancherla) . As per claim 15 , Alexis in view of Lukianov do not explicitly teach creating a record associating the data message flow with the second NUMA node. However, Kancherla teaches creating a record associating the data message flow with the second NUMA node ([0036] e ach forwarding table entry of forwarding table records an association between a particular data message flow and a particular set of service nodes ) . Kancherla and Alexis are both concerned with computing node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Kancherla because it would provide for a set of service nodes in an active-active service node cluster in conjunction with a host computer hosting a destination data compute node to improve the efficiency of directing a reverse-flow data message to a service node storing state information for the flow to which the data message belongs. Claim s 1 6-17 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Kancherla in view of Maloy (US 2019/0014025) . As per claim 16 , Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Kancherla do not explicitly teach storing the record in the local memory of the second NUMA node. However, Maloy teaches storing the record in the local memory of the second NUMA node ([0041] e ach node maintains and stores a domain record of its local domain in its local memory. Each domain record contains the identifiers of all member nodes of its local domain ) . Maloy and Alexis are both concerned with computing node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Kancherla in view of Maloy because it would provide a network node monitoring method performed by each node. The nodes can be partitioned into domains according to a sorted order. The domains include a local domain in which the node is located and one or more remote domains. Each remote domain has a domain head designated to monitor member nodes in the remote domain. The node sends probes at a given frequency to actively monitored nodes that include all other member nodes in the local domain and domain heads in the remote domains. The node then determines whether each of the actively monitored nodes is up based on replies received from the actively monitored nodes in response to the probes. As per claim 17 , Maloy teaches storing the record in each of the plurality of NUMA nodes ([0041] e ach node maintains and stores a domain record of its local domain in its local memory. Each domain record contains the identifiers of all member nodes of its local domain ) . Claim 18 i s rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Kancherla in view of Maloy in view of Bas et al. (US 11,134,032) (hereinafter Bas) . As per claim 18 , Maloy teaches wherein the record specifies a NUMA node ID identifying the second NUMA node ([0041] e ach node maintains and stores a domain record of its local domain in its local memory. Each domain record contains the identifiers of all member nodes of its local domain ) . Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Kancherla in view of Maloy do not explicitly teach wherein the record specifies a flow identifier (ID) identifying the data message flow. However, Bas teaches wherein the record specifies a flow identifier (ID) identifying the data message flow (col. 8, ll. 38-39 different records identify the different data message flows that should be stored ). Bas and Alexis are both concerned with computing node management and are therefore combinable/modifiable. Therefore, it would have been obvious to one of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to modify Alexis in view of Lukianov in view of Kancherla in view of Maloy in view of Bas because it would provide a way for tuning a virtual firewall so that a host platform may deploy the virtual firewall on the computing device. In this way, the host platform optimizes a performance and/or a latency of the virtual firewall by automatically tuning the virtual firewall prior to the virtual firewall being deployed. Also, by automatically tuning the virtual firewall, the host platform may conserve computing resources that would have otherwise been used to troubleshoot an improperly tuned virtual firewall in an attempt to improve performance. Citation of Relevant Prior Art The prior art made of record and not relied upon is considered pertinent to Applicant's disclosure: U (US 2015/0281276) disclose monitoring compliance with security policies for computer networks. Sze et al. (US 2020/0236043) disclose receiving data message flows at endpoint applications. McGrath et al. (US 2014/0068611) disclose a distributed load balancing application among nodes. Masputra et al. (US 2022/0094763) disclose receiving policies among endpoint applications. Luo (US 2020/0228451) disclose enhanced network stacking. Filsfils et al. (US 2018/0109450) disclose creating and maintaining segment routed traffic engineering policies via border gateway protocols. Curewitz et al. (US 2021/0081326) disclose mapping non-typed memory accesses to typed memory accesses. Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to Adam Lee whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 270-3369 . The examiner can normally be reached on FILLIN "Work schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-TH 8AM-5PM . If attempts to reach the above noted Examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the Examiner’s supervisor, Pierre Vital, can be reached at the following telephone number: (571) 272-4215. The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of an application may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for published applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Status information for unpublished applications is available through Patent Center for authorized users only. Should you have questions about access to Patent Center, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). 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) Form at https://www.uspto.gov/patents/uspto-automated-interview-request-air-form. /Adam Lee/ Primary Examiner, Art Unit 2198 DATE \@ "MMMM d, yyyy" February 13, 2026