What is the appropriate standard for determining whether a patent claim is "directed to" a patent-ineligible concept under step 1 of the Court's two-step framework for determining whether an invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C § 101?

Whether, and to what extent, a court may ignore the "claimed advance" that distinguishes a patented invention over the prior art in its determination of what a claim is directed to under step 1 of the Court's two step framework for determining patent eligibility under 35 U.S.C. § 101?

Whether, and to what extent, a court may consider whether a patent claim provides sufficient disclosure regarding how the claimed invention may be made or used to determine whether a patent claim is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C. § 101, or whether that improperly conflates § 101 and § 112?

Whether preemption is a consideration that the lower courts must consider in determining whether a claimed invention is directed to patent-eligible subject matter under Section 101, or whether it can be properly ignored if not raised by the patent challenger?

What is the appropriate standard for determining whether a patent claim is 'directed to' a patent-ineligible concept under step 1 of the Court's two-step framework for determining whether an invention is eligible for patenting under 35 U.S.C § 101?