According to PatentlyO, the CAFC will meet in May to decide patentable subject matter regarding business methods and software patents. The USPTO is arguing against business method patents in the CAFC banc review of subject matter, while trying to keep software patents on track (they even use the awful term "computer implemented inventions" invented by the EPO):
USPTO Position: In its opposition brief, the PTO argues that there are several Section 101 reasons to eliminate the Bilski application. First, according to the PTO, the claimed method does not qualify as a statutory “process.” Rather, statutory processes have always been associated with physical transformation or machine implementation — details missing from Bilski’s claims. In addition, the PTO argues that Bilski’s claim is an abstract idea because it is merely a “disembodied concept” that would preempt an entire field of commodities trading. Regarding State Street, the PTO would limit the the requirement of a “useful, concrete, and tangible result” to computer implemented inventions that employ a mathematical algorithm.
I want to see how data processing is producing tangible result. Mere processing a data produces new data. And data is not tangible.