Just weeks after its May 2016 memorandum to examiners providing guidance on subject matter eligibility under § 101, yesterday the USPTO issued a new memo updating its guidance to examiners in view of the Federal Circuit’s Enfish decision.  As this memo points out, the Enfish decision gave a concrete example of claims directed to improvements in computer-related technology, including claims directed to software, that are not abstract under the first step of the Alice/Mayo analysis.  Going forward, it will be important for examiners and applicants to closely analyze the limitations of claims at issue to determine whether the claims are directed to a specific implementation of a solution to a problem in the software arts.  If so, they likely satisfy the requirements of § 101 under the Enfish decision.