However, it is becoming apparent that this no longer applies. Courts no longer want to allow generic computer components or functional software language. Courts want the specifics of exactly how the software will carry out the functions. As recited in the nonprecedential opinion in Clarilogic v. FormFree Holdings, “To be sure, claiming an algorithm does not alone render subject matter patent eligible.”
Consider alternative drafting strategies, like including pseudocode, specifically indicating which components will execute which steps, how a component executes a particular step, how components work together, etc. Remember, many judges are not subject matter experts so even though it may seem obvious to you, it may not seem obvious to a judge deciding your patent’s fate - so include the details.