We conclude, as the Board did, that under step one of the Alice/Mayo inquiry, claims 1-3 are directed to an abstract idea. Although the Board's analysis under step one relied on a recitation of the Office Guidance, which we recently reiterated does not modify or supplant controlling case law, see In re Rudy, 956 F.3d 1379, 1383 (Fed. Cir. 2019), we determine that in this case the Board's reasoning and conclusions are nevertheless in accord with the relevant case law. Claims 1-3 recite processes in which a user cuts his or her food intake by a particular amount during regular mealtimes, follows prescribed "how-to-eat rules" for eating outside of the regular mealtimes, and maintains the regime for at least three months.