{"id":362,"date":"2018-04-03T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2018-04-03T00:00:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/2018\/04\/03\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/"},"modified":"2022-12-20T07:11:03","modified_gmt":"2022-12-20T07:11:03","slug":"comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/navigating-the-patent-officeexaminer-interviews\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/","title":{"rendered":"When It Comes To Markush Groups, USPTO Has \u201cDams\u201d Problem"},"content":{"rendered":"

Despite the fact that no court has ever found a Markush group improper, the USPTO continues to search for an analytical framework to realize such a finding. As we wound down our New Year\u2019s celebrations, the USPTO \u201csnuck\u201d[1] into the ninth edition of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure<\/em> (\u201cMPEP\u201d), which was released in January, a new section 706.03(y), entitled \u201cImproper Markush Grouping.\u201d<\/p>\n

The new section has some significant flaws, which are unlikely to decrease the discord between examiner and applicant.<\/p>\n

According to the new section, in the case where a claim defines alternative chemical compounds and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized physical or chemical class, the grouping will be improper if either (1) the members of the Markush group do not share a \u201csingle<\/u><\/em> structural similarity<\/u><\/em>\u201d<\/strong> (emphasis added) or (2) the members do not share a common use. Further, the members will be considered to meet (1) and (2) simultaneously when \u201cthe alternatively usable compounds share a<\/u><\/em><\/strong> substantial structural feature that is essential to [the] common use (emphasis added).\u201d<\/p>\n

Building the new section around the requirement of a \u201csingle structural similarity\u201d is not the best choice for a couple of reasons. First, although the new MPEP<\/em> section attributes this requirement to In re Harnisch<\/em>,[2]\u00a0this was actually the phraseology of the underlying board decision that the court in Harnisch<\/em> reversed, and the phraseology was not adopted by the court as a determinative criterion of its own.[3]<\/p>\n

Second, and more importantly, the phrase \u201csingle structural similarity\u201d is an oxymoron, and therefore, fraught with ambiguity. The examining corps will no doubt focus on the adjective \u201csingle,\u201d[4] and search for and require that a single invariable core group be identifiable in all of the grouped compounds of a proper Markush grouping. This will be in spite of the fact that the phrase concludes with the word \u201csimilarity,\u201d which by its very nature permits variability.<\/p>\n

Fortunately for prosecutors, the new section includes a subsection IV, which sets forth a number of examples and helps to shed some light on how this analysis should actually proceed. Although the new section indicates the \u201cexamples illustrate Markush groupings that have been found to be proper and improper<\/u><\/em><\/strong> (emphasis added),\u201d I contend, as will be explained below, that all of the Markush groupings are proper.<\/p>\n

Example A is the Harnisch<\/em> case, in which the compounds claimed all contained the coumarin nucleus and, therefore, shared a single invariable core. In Harnisch, <\/em>the Markush grouping was found to be proper.<\/p>\n

Example C is taken from Ex parte Hozumi<\/em>,[5]\u00a0and gives one pause due to the shallowness of the analysis. The claims in that case related to compounds of the formula, shown above, which were disclosed as anticancer and antimicrobial agents. The board decision noted that \u201cthe claimed compounds are phosphoric acid diesters in which one esterifying moiety is derived from a poly(ethylene glycol) monoether and the other is derived from a beta-aminoethanol.\u201d And, after further noting the variability in the repeating oxyethylene groups (i.e., the parenthetical grouping modified by \u201cn\u201d) and on the nitrogen atom, the board emphasized \u201cthe relatively large portion of the compounds in the claimed class which is common to the entire class.\u201d However, the board did not actually identify the large common portion, nor did the board provide any analysis how the large common portion was deemed essential to the shared use. Here again, the Markush grouping was found to be proper.<\/p>\n

Assuming I\u2019ve correctly identified the single structural similarity in Hozumi,<\/em> both Harnisch <\/em>and Hozumi<\/em> provide ammunition for the single invariable core camp, as in both cases a single invariable core group was present.<\/p>\n

However, Example B, Ex parte Dams<\/em>[6]\u00a0is another kettle of fish altogether. As was the case with both Harnisch<\/em> and Hozumi,<\/em> the Markush group in Dams<\/em> was found to be proper. At issue were compounds of the formula,<\/p>\n

\"\"<\/p>\n

where, importantly, Y is \u201can anionic<\/u><\/em><\/strong> hydrophilic polar group comprising at least one carbon, nitrogen, oxygen, or sulfur atom (emphasis added).\u201d As conceded by the MPEP,<\/em> the board found this Markush grouping of compounds shared \u201ca common structural feature disclosed as being essential to the disclosed utility of being an anionic<\/u><\/em><\/strong> surfactant (emphasis added).\u201d<\/p>\n

Indeed, it turns out that the CO-Y group\u2014which is highly variable\u2014was proven to be essential to the disclosed utility of the compounds as anionic surfactants.[7] This remains true whether the single structural similarity is CO-Y itself or CO-Y combined with some adjacent other portion of the molecule. Thus, it is impossible to find in this Markush grouping of compounds a single invariable core to which one can assign the anionic responsibility and, consequently, Dams<\/em> provides support for those who argue that the structural similarity need not be a single invariable core.<\/p>\n

While the new MPEP<\/em> section provides Dams<\/em> as exemplary, curiously the analysis of the decision does not discuss this important point.<\/p>\n

Collectively, these examples, properly analyzed, reveal the single structural similarity need not be a single invariable core, but can be generic, and thus the correct emphasis is on the \u201csimilarity,\u201d not that the structural similarity is \u201csingle,\u201d i.e., invariable in nature. Provided the alternative compounds share close structural similarity, and this close structural similarity can be viewed as essential to the shared use, this should be sufficient to establish the Markush grouping as proper.<\/p>\n

And if, as I contend, close structural similarity is sufficient, then \u201csingle\u201d has no role in the phraseology \u201csingle structural similarity\u201d and, thus, should be dropped. Presumably, a grouping of compounds that share multiple close structural similarities (and, therefore, are conceptually even closer structurally than a grouping of compounds that share only a single close structural similarity) could not be found improper on this basis. Consequently, the presence of \u201csingle\u201d in the USPTO\u2019s new framework only serves to confuse the issue.<\/p>\n

A final example D is provided,[8] but the analysis here also leaves much to be desired. The claim is drawn to a herbicidal composition consisting essentially of a mixture of (a) a first herbicide, 2,4-D;[9] and (b) a second herbicide selected from a Markush group of various herbicides. The analysis concedes \u201c[a]ll members of the Markush grouping have a common disclosed use as herbicides,\u201d but alleges the alternatives (b) are not all members of the same physical or chemical class and are not art-recognized equivalents. However, as discussed earlier, where the claim defines alternative chemical compounds, and the alternatives do not belong to a recognized physical or chemical class, the grouping will be improper only if either (1) the members of the Markush group do not share a \u201csingle structural similarity\u201d or (2) the members do not share a common use.<\/p>\n

A common use is already conceded, so the propriety of the Markush group depends on the presence of a single structural similarity.<\/p>\n

Further, in this case, all of the alternative chemical compounds share the component 2,4-D. According to the analysis, the members of the Markush grouping do not share a substantial structural feature because \u201cthe members of the Markush group defining component (b) represent a plurality of chemical classes with varying structures.\u201d This may be, but this ignores the admonition from Harnisch<\/em> that \u201cin determining the propriety of a Markush grouping the compounds must<\/u><\/em><\/strong> be considered as wholes and not<\/u><\/em><\/strong> broken down into elements or other components (emphasis added).\u201d[10] The failure here is the failure to view every embodiment of the claimed composition as a single chemical compound, albeit produced by combining individual component compounds. Every such embodiment will contain 2,4-D, which is essential to the herbicidal activity claimed, and, therefore, links all of the embodiments, providing unity of invention. Indeed, there certainly is more structural commonality here than there was in Dams.<\/em><\/p>\n

In short, this Example D is wrongly decided, and all of the examples provided should be considered to illustrate proper Markush groups.<\/p>\n

While I certainly can appreciate the enormous burdens the examining corps faces in examining claims containing large Markush groups, this new MPEP<\/em> section is sufficiently flawed that it will not be of any help in this regard. Although the court in Harnisch<\/em> hypothesized[11] that there might be an improper Markush grouping, the fact is that patent prosecutors are sufficiently well-versed in Markush practice by now, nearly 40 years post-Harnisch,<\/em> that the chances are low they will introduce claims containing an improper Markush grouping. If this new MPEP<\/em> section was intended to equip patent examiners with a new tool to even the Markush playing field, more work needs to be done, and the USPTO will probably need to look elsewhere to lessen the examiners\u2019 burdens.[12]<\/p>\n

If you have any questions about this post, please contact me at kgbriscoe@nmmlaw.com<\/a>.<\/p>\n

Footnotes<\/strong><\/em><\/p>\n

[1] Actually, the revision was made in August 2017 without much fanfare, then made its way into the newly released MPEP<\/em> revision.<\/p>\n

[2] 206 USPQ 300, 305 (CCPA).<\/p>\n

[3] The court did treat this as an \u201cadmission\u201d by the board that the compounds, which the court repeatedly emphasized were all coumarin compounds, were closely structurally similar. Id.<\/em><\/p>\n

[4] One can expect the examining corps also to place emphasis on the \u201ca\u201d in \u201ca<\/u><\/em><\/strong> substantial structural feature\u201d.<\/p>\n

[5] 3 USPQ2d 1059.<\/p>\n

[6] Unpublished decision mailed September 13, 2000, during the prosecution of U.S. Patent No. 6,201,122.<\/p>\n

[7] Comparison data in the patent specification involving compounds wherein CO-Y was not anionic proved the resulting compounds were not anionic surfactants, thereby establishing CO-Y must be anionic in order for the compounds to function as anionic surfactants.<\/p>\n

[8] Whereas Examples A-C are all taken from appeal decisions, this Example D is taken from examination guidelines.<\/p>\n

[9] \u201c2,4-D\u201d is an abbreviation for 2,4-dichlorophenoxy acetic acid.<\/p>\n

[10] 206 USPQ at 305.<\/p>\n

[11] According to the Harnisch<\/em> court, inventions lacking \u201cunity of invention,\u201d which, thus, would be drawn to \u201cinventions which are truly independent and<\/em> distinct (emphasis in original),\u201d might present improper Markush groups. See 206 USPQ at 306.<\/p>\n

[12] MPEP<\/em> 803.02 has long been on the books for exactly this purpose, but probably because it still entails examination of the entire scope of the Markush claim as originally presented, its use is disfavored\/discouraged in practice. The new section would have the examiner maintain the improper Markush rejection \u201cuntil (1) the claim is amended such that the Markush grouping includes only members that share a single structural similarity and common use; or (2) the applicant presents convincing arguments why the members of the Markush grouping share a single structural similarity and common use.\u201d If the examiner maintains applicants\u2019 arguments as unconvincing, applicant either must appeal (and wait years for a decision) or amend to some scope the examiner will accept as clearly containing a single invariable core group.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

Despite the fact that no court has ever found a Markush group improper, the USPTO continues to search for an analytical framework to realize such a finding. As we wound down our New Year\u2019s celebrations, the USPTO \u201csnuck\u201d[1] into the ninth edition of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (\u201cMPEP\u201d), which was released in January, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":167,"featured_media":633,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[10],"tags":[205,206,207,191,208,181,202,209],"coauthors":[],"acf":[],"yoast_head":"\nWhen It Comes To Markush Groups, USPTO Has \u201cDams\u201d Problem - More Than Your Mark\u00ae<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/navigating-the-patent-officeexaminer-interviews\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"When It Comes To Markush Groups, USPTO Has \u201cDams\u201d Problem\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:description\" content=\"Despite the fact that no court has ever found a Markush group improper, the USPTO continues to search for an analytical framework to realize such a finding. As we wound down our New Year\u2019s celebrations, the USPTO \u201csnuck\u201d[1] into the ninth edition of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (\u201cMPEP\u201d), which was released in January, […]\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/navigating-the-patent-officeexaminer-interviews\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"More Than Your Mark\u00ae\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2018-04-03T00:00:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2022-12-20T07:11:03+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2018\/04\/single-structural-similarity.png\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"530\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"200\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/png\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"becurious\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"becurious\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"9 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\/\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/navigating-the-patent-officeexaminer-interviews\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/navigating-the-patent-officeexaminer-interviews\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/\",\"name\":\"When It Comes To Markush Groups, USPTO Has \u201cDams\u201d Problem - More Than Your Mark\u00ae\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2018-04-03T00:00:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2022-12-20T07:11:03+00:00\",\"author\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#\/schema\/person\/15d35b1780e232e81cc304508eae69db\"},\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/navigating-the-patent-officeexaminer-interviews\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/navigating-the-patent-officeexaminer-interviews\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/navigating-the-patent-officeexaminer-interviews\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"When It Comes To Markush Groups, USPTO Has \u201cDams\u201d Problem\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/\",\"name\":\"More Than Your Mark\u00ae\",\"description\":\"Trademark, Copyright, and Unfair Competition Law Blog\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":\"required name=search_term_string\"}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#\/schema\/person\/15d35b1780e232e81cc304508eae69db\",\"name\":\"becurious\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/dbacd5c71796ace12b187b8b37c0bd8d\",\"url\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a9130cb88efbf6f7040e8a6952d0264b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a9130cb88efbf6f7040e8a6952d0264b?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"becurious\"},\"url\":\"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/author\/becurious\/\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO Premium plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"When It Comes To Markush Groups, USPTO Has \u201cDams\u201d Problem - More Than Your Mark\u00ae","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/navigating-the-patent-officeexaminer-interviews\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"When It Comes To Markush Groups, USPTO Has \u201cDams\u201d Problem","og_description":"Despite the fact that no court has ever found a Markush group improper, the USPTO continues to search for an analytical framework to realize such a finding. As we wound down our New Year\u2019s celebrations, the USPTO \u201csnuck\u201d[1] into the ninth edition of the Manual of Patent Examining Procedure (\u201cMPEP\u201d), which was released in January, […]","og_url":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/navigating-the-patent-officeexaminer-interviews\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/","og_site_name":"More Than Your Mark\u00ae","article_published_time":"2018-04-03T00:00:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2022-12-20T07:11:03+00:00","og_image":[{"width":530,"height":200,"url":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/8\/2018\/04\/single-structural-similarity.png","type":"image\/png"}],"author":"becurious","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"becurious","Est. reading time":"9 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/navigating-the-patent-officeexaminer-interviews\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/","url":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/navigating-the-patent-officeexaminer-interviews\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/","name":"When It Comes To Markush Groups, USPTO Has \u201cDams\u201d Problem - More Than Your Mark\u00ae","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#website"},"datePublished":"2018-04-03T00:00:00+00:00","dateModified":"2022-12-20T07:11:03+00:00","author":{"@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#\/schema\/person\/15d35b1780e232e81cc304508eae69db"},"breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/navigating-the-patent-officeexaminer-interviews\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/navigating-the-patent-officeexaminer-interviews\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/navigating-the-patent-officeexaminer-interviews\/comes-markush-groups-uspto-dams-problem\/#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"When It Comes To Markush Groups, USPTO Has \u201cDams\u201d Problem"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#website","url":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/","name":"More Than Your Mark\u00ae","description":"Trademark, Copyright, and Unfair Competition Law Blog","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":"required name=search_term_string"}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#\/schema\/person\/15d35b1780e232e81cc304508eae69db","name":"becurious","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/#\/schema\/person\/image\/dbacd5c71796ace12b187b8b37c0bd8d","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a9130cb88efbf6f7040e8a6952d0264b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/a9130cb88efbf6f7040e8a6952d0264b?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"becurious"},"url":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/author\/becurious\/"}]}},"post_mailing_queue_ids":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/362"}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/167"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=362"}],"version-history":[{"count":1,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/362\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":634,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/362\/revisions\/634"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/633"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=362"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=362"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=362"},{"taxonomy":"author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/norrismclaughlin.com\/mtym\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/coauthors?post=362"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}