Hardly anything is accurate in this Forbes article about software related inventions.
They did get one thing right though by noting:
"Similarly, the PTO has been (almost gleefully) following the lead of the courts in rejecting computer-related inventions [under Alice v. CLS]. The American Bar Association's "Post-Alice Task Force" has found that the majority of PTO Section 101 rejections citing Alice have been boilerplate rejections, without ... specifically addressing the claims at issue."
And why not be "gleeful"?
After all, if you are an overburdened examiner, here is a "no brainer" tool for lightening you work load.
(Except that by shutting off your brain, you become a "tool" of them that don't like intellectual property too much.)
Harried District Court judges also gleefully jump on the Alice-so-good-for-us band wagon.
What better way to simplify your docket than by seeing a quick rabbit hole path to summary judgment and immediate disposal of the case? Of course the invention is "directed to" an abstract idea and fails to recite "significantly more". If the Supremes can declare it so, surely I can make it so too.