As I understand, the Alice decision set up a two-step rule for determining patent eligibility. Subsequent rulings in the U.S. (like McRO, Inc. v. Activision Publishing, McRO v. Bandai Namco Games America, Enfish LLC v. Microsoft, and Amdocs v. Openet Telecom) have been favorable to software patents and have clarified the landscape a bit.
But when drafting claims directed to software inventions, what are the best and/or most used strategies for avoiding Alice-based §101 rejections? I recall reading that a strong post-Alice strategy is to write the claims in means-plus-function language which refers back to specific hardware in the specification. Is this the best approach? Are there other approaches that don't limit the claims as much?