{"id":9951,"date":"2025-10-11T05:55:14","date_gmt":"2025-10-11T05:55:14","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/?p=9951"},"modified":"2025-10-11T06:04:44","modified_gmt":"2025-10-11T06:04:44","slug":"tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/","title":{"rendered":"Guidelines for Assessing Inventive Step in Patent Appeals"},"content":{"rendered":"<article id=\"tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal\"><header>\n<h2 id=\"case-title\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Tapas_Chatterjee_Vs_Assistant_Controller_of_Patents_and_Designs_Anr\"><\/span>Tapas Chatterjee Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs &amp; Anr.<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p id=\"case-meta\"><strong>Order Date:<\/strong> 6 October 2025 \u00a0|\u00a0 <strong>Case No:<\/strong> LPA 836\/2023 \u00a0|\u00a0 <strong>Neutral Citation:<\/strong> 2025:DHC:8824-DB \u00a0|\u00a0 <strong>Court:<\/strong> High Court of Delhi at New Delhi \u00a0|\u00a0 <strong>Division Bench:<\/strong> Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Ajay Digpaul<\/p><div id=\"ez-toc-container\" class=\"ez-toc-v2_0_82_2 counter-hierarchy ez-toc-counter ez-toc-grey ez-toc-container-direction\">\n<div class=\"ez-toc-title-container\">\n<p class=\"ez-toc-title\" style=\"cursor:inherit\">Table of Contents<\/p>\n<span class=\"ez-toc-title-toggle\"><a href=\"#\" class=\"ez-toc-pull-right ez-toc-btn ez-toc-btn-xs ez-toc-btn-default ez-toc-toggle\" aria-label=\"Toggle Table of Content\"><span class=\"ez-toc-js-icon-con\"><span class=\"\"><span class=\"eztoc-hide\" style=\"display:none;\">Toggle<\/span><span class=\"ez-toc-icon-toggle-span\"><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" class=\"list-377408\" width=\"20px\" height=\"20px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" fill=\"none\"><path d=\"M6 6H4v2h2V6zm14 0H8v2h12V6zM4 11h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2zM4 16h2v2H4v-2zm16 0H8v2h12v-2z\" fill=\"currentColor\"><\/path><\/svg><svg style=\"fill: #0c0c0c;color:#0c0c0c\" class=\"arrow-unsorted-368013\" xmlns=\"http:\/\/www.w3.org\/2000\/svg\" width=\"10px\" height=\"10px\" viewBox=\"0 0 24 24\" version=\"1.2\" baseProfile=\"tiny\"><path d=\"M18.2 9.3l-6.2-6.3-6.2 6.3c-.2.2-.3.4-.3.7s.1.5.3.7c.2.2.4.3.7.3h11c.3 0 .5-.1.7-.3.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7zM5.8 14.7l6.2 6.3 6.2-6.3c.2-.2.3-.5.3-.7s-.1-.5-.3-.7c-.2-.2-.4-.3-.7-.3h-11c-.3 0-.5.1-.7.3-.2.2-.3.5-.3.7s.1.5.3.7z\"\/><\/svg><\/span><\/span><\/span><\/a><\/span><\/div>\n<nav><ul class='ez-toc-list ez-toc-list-level-1 ' ><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-1\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Tapas_Chatterjee_Vs_Assistant_Controller_of_Patents_and_Designs_Anr\" >Tapas Chatterjee Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs &amp; Anr.<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-2\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Executive_Summary\" >Executive Summary<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-3\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Facts\" >Facts<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-4\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Procedural_History\" >Procedural History<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-5\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Filing_and_Examination\" >Filing and Examination<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-6\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Pre-grant_Opposition\" >Pre-grant Opposition<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-7\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Controller_Decision\" >Controller Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-8\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#High_Court_%E2%80%94_Single_Judge\" >High Court \u2014 Single Judge<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-9\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Division_Bench_Appeal\" >Division Bench Appeal<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-10\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Core_Dispute_and_Legal_Issues\" >Core Dispute and Legal Issues<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-11\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Detailed_Reasoning\" >Detailed Reasoning<\/a><ul class='ez-toc-list-level-3' ><li class='ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-12\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Analysis_of_Prior_Art\" >Analysis of Prior Art<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-13\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Application_of_the_Hoffmann-La_Roche_Test\" >Application of the Hoffmann-La Roche Test<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-3'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-14\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Application_of_Section_3d\" >Application of Section 3(d)<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-15\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Decision\" >Decision<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-16\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Practical_Implications\" >Practical Implications<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-17\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Citations_and_Resources\" >Citations and Resources<\/a><\/li><li class='ez-toc-page-1 ez-toc-heading-level-2'><a class=\"ez-toc-link ez-toc-heading-18\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/tapas-chatterjee-patent-appeal-delhi-high-court\/#Disclaimer\" >Disclaimer<\/a><\/li><\/ul><\/nav><\/div>\n\n<p id=\"written-by\"><strong>Written By:<\/strong> Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark Attorney)<\/p>\n<\/header>\n<section id=\"summary\" aria-labelledby=\"summary-heading\">\n<h2 id=\"summary-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Executive_Summary\"><\/span>Executive Summary<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>This case involved a patent dispute over a process for recovery of potassium sulphate and other valuable products from distillery spent wash, aiming for a Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD) system. The Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs (AC) refused the application on grounds of inventive step and Section 3(d). The Single Judge affirmed. The Division Bench remanded the matter to the Controller for a fresh, reasoned consideration limited to the record and allowed the appeal, rejecting the Section 3(d) objection.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"facts\" aria-labelledby=\"facts-heading\">\n<h2 id=\"facts-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Facts\"><\/span>Facts<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The appellant, Tapas Chatterjee, applied for a patent in 2019 for a process to treat distillery spent wash and recover potassium sulphate, magnesium sulphate, activated carbon and other value-added products, while achieving Zero Liquid Discharge (ZLD). The Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) filed a pre-grant opposition under provisions of the Patents Act, 1970.<\/p>\n<table id=\"facts-table\" summary=\"Key factual points\">\n<thead>\n<tr>\n<th>Topic<\/th>\n<th>Detail<\/th>\n<\/tr>\n<\/thead>\n<tbody>\n<tr>\n<td>Invention<\/td>\n<td>Process for recovery of potassium sulphate, magnesium sulphate, activated carbon and other products from distillery spent wash; aims for ZLD<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Applicant<\/td>\n<td>Tapas Chatterjee (applied 2019)<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Opponent<\/td>\n<td>Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR) \u2014 pre-grant opposition<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Main Allegations by CSIR<\/td>\n<td>Lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, not patentable under Section 3(d), insufficiency of description<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Outcome at AC &amp; Single Judge<\/td>\n<td>Novelty objection rejected; inventive step and Section 3(d) objections upheld; patent refused; Single Judge affirmed<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<tr>\n<td>Decision at Division Bench<\/td>\n<td>Allowed appeal; set aside orders; remanded to CGPDTM for fresh consideration on inventive step; rejected Section 3(d) objection<\/td>\n<\/tr>\n<\/tbody>\n<\/table>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"procedural-history\" aria-labelledby=\"procedural-heading\">\n<h2 id=\"procedural-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Procedural_History\"><\/span>Procedural History<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<ol id=\"procedural-list\">\n<li>\n<h3 id=\"filing-and-exam\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Filing_and_Examination\"><\/span>Filing and Examination<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>Application filed in 2019. Assistant Controller conducted the standard examination, issued a First Examination Report, and considered the appellant&#8217;s replies.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h3 id=\"pre-grant-opposition\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Pre-grant_Opposition\"><\/span>Pre-grant Opposition<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>CSIR filed a pre-grant opposition under Section 25(1) raising multiple grounds including lack of novelty, lack of inventive step, Section 3(d) objections and insufficiency of disclosure.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h3 id=\"controller-decision\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Controller_Decision\"><\/span>Controller Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Assistant Controller rejected novelty objections but upheld inventive step and Section 3(d), refusing the patent application.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h3 id=\"high-court-single-judge\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"High_Court_%E2%80%94_Single_Judge\"><\/span><a href=\"\/lawyers\/delhi.htm\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">High Court<\/a> \u2014 Single Judge<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The appellant appealed to the Single Judge of the High Court of Delhi; the Single Judge affirmed the Controller\u2019s decision.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<li>\n<h3 id=\"division-bench-appeal\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Division_Bench_Appeal\"><\/span>Division Bench Appeal<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The appellant filed a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA). The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside previous orders and remanded the matter to the Controller for fresh consideration.<\/p>\n<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"dispute-issues\" aria-labelledby=\"issues-heading\">\n<h2 id=\"issues-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Core_Dispute_and_Legal_Issues\"><\/span>Core Dispute and Legal Issues<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The dispute centered on two principal legal questions:<\/p>\n<ul id=\"issues-list\">\n<li><strong>Section 3(d) applicability:<\/strong> Whether the claimed process was a mere use of a known process and therefore non-patentable under Section 3(d).<\/li>\n<li><strong>Inventive step \/ obviousness:<\/strong> Whether the invention lacked an inventive step in light of prior art (Sections 2(1)(ja) and 25(1)(e)), particularly D1 (US patent) and D2 (Indian standard).<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"detailed-reasoning\" aria-labelledby=\"reasoning-heading\">\n<h2 id=\"reasoning-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Detailed_Reasoning\"><\/span>Detailed Reasoning<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Division Bench examined the Assistant Controller\u2019s and the Single Judge&#8217;s reasoning in detail. While the Controller conceded novelty, he found lack of inventive step by comparing the claimed steps to prior arts D1 and D2 and treating routine chemical engineering operations as obvious.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"analysis-of-prior-art\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Analysis_of_Prior_Art\"><\/span>Analysis of Prior Art<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Bench found the Controller&#8217;s analysis deficient because it did not identify with specificity which features were obvious nor did it perform a detailed point-by-point comparison between the prior arts and the claimed invention. The prior arts had different approaches, products and processes and did not disclose the combination of recovery steps and additional by-products claimed in the application.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"hoffmann-test\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Application_of_the_Hoffmann-La_Roche_Test\"><\/span>Application of the Hoffmann-La Roche Test<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Bench reiterated the legal test for inventive step from <em>F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd v. Cipla Ltd.<\/em>:<\/p>\n<ol id=\"hoffmann-steps\">\n<li>Identify the person skilled in the art.<\/li>\n<li>Identify the inventive concept of the claim in question.<\/li>\n<li>Assess the state of general knowledge at the priority date.<\/li>\n<li>Compare the differences between the prior art and the claimed invention and ask whether those differences would have been obvious.<\/li>\n<\/ol>\n<p>The Division Bench concluded that the Controller and the Single Judge had not properly followed these steps, and thus their conclusions on inventive step were inadequately reasoned.<\/p>\n<h3 id=\"section-3d-application\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Application_of_Section_3d\"><\/span>Application of Section 3(d)<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h3>\n<p>The Bench clarified that Section 3(d) applies only if an invention is shown to be a mere use of a known process. It will not apply where the process yields a new product or uses a new reactant. Since the claimed process resulted in value-added products not present in the prior arts, the invocation of Section 3(d) was incorrect.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"decision\" aria-labelledby=\"decision-heading\">\n<h2 id=\"decision-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Decision\"><\/span>Decision<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The Division Bench allowed the appeal, set aside the orders of the Single Judge and Assistant Controller, and remanded the matter to the Controller General of Patents, Designs and Trade Marks (CGPDTM) for fresh consideration limited to the material on record. The Court explicitly rejected the Section 3(d) objection and directed the Controller to re-evaluate inventive step following the Hoffmann test and to produce a well-reasoned decision after hearing the parties; both parties were permitted to supplement written submissions.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"practical-implications\" aria-labelledby=\"implications-heading\">\n<h2 id=\"implications-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Practical_Implications\"><\/span>Practical Implications<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The judgment emphasizes the necessity for adjudicating authorities and courts to provide clear, specific comparisons when rejecting inventive step. Routine or conclusory statements that standard operations render a process obvious will not suffice. The decision also narrows the application of Section 3(d) for processes that result in distinct or additional products.<\/p>\n<\/section>\n<section id=\"citations-and-resources\" aria-labelledby=\"citations-heading\">\n<h2 id=\"citations-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Citations_and_Resources\"><\/span>Citations and Resources<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p><strong>Primary Citation:<\/strong> <b>Tapas Chatterjee v. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs &amp; Anr<\/b>., LPA 836\/2023, Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8824-DB (Order dated 6 October 2025).<\/p>\n<ul id=\"citation-list\">\n<li>Patents Act, 1970 (sections referenced including Section 2(1)(ja) and Section 3(d)).<\/li>\n<li>F. Hoffmann-La Roche Ltd. v. Cipla Ltd. \u2014 authority on inventive step test.<\/li>\n<li>Controller of Patents and Designs office guidance and examination reports.<\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<\/section>\n<footer id=\"disclaimer\" aria-labelledby=\"disclaimer-heading\">\n<h2 id=\"disclaimer-heading\"><span class=\"ez-toc-section\" id=\"Disclaimer\"><\/span>Disclaimer<span class=\"ez-toc-section-end\"><\/span><\/h2>\n<p>The information shared here is intended for public interest and provides insights and perspectives. Readers should exercise their own discretion. The content is subjective and may contain errors in perception, interpretation, or presentation.<\/p>\n<\/footer><\/article>\n\n\n<p><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Tapas Chatterjee Vs. Assistant Controller of Patents and Designs &amp; Anr. Order Date: 6 October 2025 \u00a0|\u00a0 Case No: LPA 836\/2023 \u00a0|\u00a0 Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:8824-DB \u00a0|\u00a0 Court: High Court of Delhi at New Delhi \u00a0|\u00a0 Division Bench: Justice C. Hari Shankar, Justice Ajay Digpaul Written By: Advocate Ajay Amitabh Suman, IP Adjutor (Patent and Trademark<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":56,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_bbp_topic_count":0,"_bbp_reply_count":0,"_bbp_total_topic_count":0,"_bbp_total_reply_count":0,"_bbp_voice_count":0,"_bbp_anonymous_reply_count":0,"_bbp_topic_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_reply_count_hidden":0,"_bbp_forum_subforum_count":0,"two_page_speed":[],"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"_joinchat":[],"footnotes":""},"categories":[21],"tags":[24],"class_list":{"0":"post-9951","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-intellectual-property","7":"tag-just-in"},"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9951","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/56"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=9951"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/9951\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=9951"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=9951"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalserviceindia.com\/Legal-Articles\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=9951"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}