Notice of Pre-AIA or AIA Status The present application, filed on or after March 16, 2013, is being examined under the first inventor to file provisions of the AIA. Information Disclosure Statement Receipt is acknowledged of the Information Disclosure Statement filed on 03/17/2023 and 05/12/2023. The Examiner has considered the reference cited therein to the extent that each is a proper citation. Please see attached USPTO form. Election/Restriction Applicant's election with traverse of Group I (claims 1-11, 16-18, and 20) in the reply filed on 02/20/2026 is acknowledged. Claims 12-15, and 19 are withdrawn from consideration from further consideration pursuant to 37 CFR 1.142(b), as being withdrawn to a non-elected invention, and non-elected species of the invention, there being no allowable generic or linking claims. Applicant traverses on the grounds that Groups I-II do not lack unity of invention and argues there is no additional search burden during examination. Examiner finds the applicant’s argument unpersuasive and maintains the restriction because Groups I-II do not relate to a single general inventive concept under PCT Rule 13.1, because, under PCT Rule 13.2, they lack the same or corresponding special technical feature for the reasons as stated in the previous office action (see Page 4). The special technical feature is a composition with a solvent from the group consisting of alpha-omega diols, 1,2-butane diol, 1,3-butane diol, 1,2-pentane diol, and 1,2-hexane diol. T he USPTO is not bound by the rules of the Written Opinion of the International Searching Authority (PCT/EP2021/075659). Restriction for examination purposes as indicated is proper thereby the restriction requirement is still deemed proper and is therefore made FINAL. Claims under consideration in the current office action are claims 1-11, 16-18, and 20. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 112 The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112(b): (b) CONCLUSION.—The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the inventor or a joint inventor regards as the invention. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph: The specification shall conclude with one or more claims particularly pointing out and distinctly claiming the subject matter which the applicant regards as his invention. Claim 16 rejected under 35 U.S.C. 112(b) or 35 U.S.C. 112 (pre-AIA), second paragraph, as being incomplete for omitting essential elements, such omission amounting to a gap between the elements. See MPEP § 2172.01. Claim 16 recites “R 1 and R 2 are groups such that NH-CHR I -CO and/or NH-CHR2-CO are non-polar amino acids: R3 is a group such that NH-CHR 3 -CO is an L or D-amino acid residue” (see lines 5-8). The omitted elements are: the moieties of R 1 , R 2 , and R 3 in the structure for PA. The moieties of the R groups should be defined in a manner similar to the N-terminal protection group Z later in the instant claim. Claim Rejections - 35 USC § 103 In the event the determination of the status of the application as subject to AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103 (or as subject to pre-AIA 35 U.S.C. 102 and 103) is incorrect, any correction of the statutory basis (i.e., changing from AIA to pre-AIA) for the rejection will not be considered a new ground of rejection if the prior art relied upon, and the rationale supporting the rejection, would be the same under either status. The following is a quotation of 35 U.S.C. 103 which forms the basis for all obviousness rejections set forth in this Office action: A patent for a claimed invention may not be obtained, notwithstanding that the claimed invention is not identically disclosed as set forth in section 102, if the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains. Patentability shall not be negated by the manner in which the invention was made. Claims 1- 6, 8-9, 11 and 17 , are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McIver et. al (US6162783A) hereinafter McIver. McIver teaches a liquid detergent composition comprising a proteolytic enzyme (see Abstract). With regards to claims 1 and 8-9, McIver teaches a liquid detergent compositions containing a detersive surfactant, a proteolytic enzyme, and a peptide protease inhibitor selected from the group consisting of peptide aldehydes (see Column 1, Lines 9-14). McIver also teaches composition further comprises polyols, such as propylene glycol (especially 1,2 propanediol, which is preferred), ethylene glycol, glycerol, sorbitol, mannitol, glucose, and mixtures thereof composition (see Column 16, Lines 35-44) . McIver also has specific examples of 2 diols ( polyethylene glycol and polypropylene glycol 2000) being used in a 2:1 ratio in composition A, Example III (see Column 21). Composition A comprises 6.7 wt % nonionic surfactant, 3 wt % polyethylene glycol, 1.5 wt % polypropylene glycol 2000, 0.00025-0.0025 wt % peptide aldehyde, 0.001-0.01 wt % protease A or protease B among others, wherein the ratio of polypropylene glycol to polyethylene glycol (another diol solvent) is 1:2 (see Column 21). Although McIver does not teach a single composition comprising of 1,2-propane diol and another diol organic solvent, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify composition A in Example I with the addition of 1.5 wt % polypropylene glycol 2000 (a diol other than 1,2-propane diol) from composition A in Example III for the benefit of aiding in the stabilization of enzymes (see Column 1, Lines 30-31). With regards to claims 2 and 4, McIver teaches the use of diols such as polyethylene glycol (see Column 16, Lines 35-44). Polyethylene glycol is an alpha omega diol because it has hydroxyl groups on both ends of its molecule. With regards to claims 3 and 17, McIver does not teach a single composition comprising of 1,2-propane diol and another diol organic solvent. However, based on the obvious modification of composition A in Example I with 1.5 wt % polypropylene glycol recited above, the ratio of 1,2-propane diol to polypropylene glycol would be 12:1.5, which falls within the ratios recited in the instant claims. “Where general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Even though applicant' s modification results in great improvement and utility over prior art, it may still not be patentable if modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art.” In Re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. With regard to claim 5, McIver teaches the use of 1-15 wt % of polyols, especially diols, in the composition (see Column 16, Lines 35-44,). McIver additionally teaches the use of 0.00001-5 wt % peptide protease inhibitor such as peptide aldehydes (see Column 2, Lines 42-45; see also Column 1, Lines 64-65). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to have optimized the proportion of the polypropylene glycol and peptide aldehyde in the detergent composition taught by McIver to arrive at the required ratios, since optimization of components would have been prima facie obvious in order to obtain the most effective detergent composition, absent a showing otherwise. “Where general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Even though applicant' s modification results in great improvement and utility over prior art, it may still not be patentable if modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art.” In Re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. With regards to claims 6, McIver teaches composition A to comprise of Protease A or B (see Example III). Protease A and B are modified bacterial serine proteolytic enzymes made by Genencor International (see Lines 51, Column 7-Line 4, Column 8). It is known in the art that serine protease enzymes comprise a catalytic triad of the amino acids aspartate, histidine, and serine. With regards to claim 11, McIver does not explicitly disclose at least 60% residual hydrolytic activity when the detergent is stored for at least 28 days at 30 C. However, McIver teaches peptide aldehydes to stabilize protease enzymes (see Column 1, Lines 35-37). Because the instant claims recite the presence of a peptide aldehyde in the composition, it would be reasonable for one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to expect the minimum hydrolytic activity at 28 days 30 C to be at least 60%. The hydrolytic activity is known in the art to be a property of a serine protease enzymes such as the ones taught by McIver (see Column 7, Lines 56-59). With regards to claim 16, the synthesis of the peptide aldehyde ( Ms - Phe -Gly-Ala- LeuH ) used in composition A is detailed in Synthesis Example 2. McIver also teaches the synthesis of tripeptide trifluoromethylketone (Moc-Phe-Gly-AlaLeuCF 3 ) in Synthesis Example 1 (see Lines 43-67, Column 5). With regards to claim 20, McIver teaches a liquid detergent composition comprising from about 0.0001-5 wt % of an active proteolytic enzyme and 0.00001-5 wt % peptide protease inhibitor, which can be a peptide aldehyde (see Lines 40-45, Column 2; see also Lines 64-65, Column 1). Hence McIver teaches the total weight ratio range between the peptide aldehyde and protease enzyme of 10:1 (0.0001:0.00001) to 1:1 (5:5). Although McIver does not explicitly teach the 1:1 to 20:1 molar ratio between the peptide aldehyde to the serine protease in the liquid detergent composition, based on the wt % ranges of the peptide inhibitor (peptide aldehyde) and enzyme (serine protease) taught above, they overlap with the 15:1 to 35:1 weight ratio of the peptide aldehyde to the protease taught in the instant specification. It would have been obvious to one having ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date of the claimed invention to reasonably expect the proportions of each of two components to overlap with the molar ratios recited in the instant claim. “Where general conditions of the claims are disclosed in the prior art, it is not inventive to discover optimum or workable ranges by routine experimentation. Even though applicant' s modification results in great improvement and utility over prior art, it may still not be patentable if modification was within the capabilities of one skilled in the art.” In Re Aller , 105 USPQ 233. Claims 1 and 6-7 are rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over Lant et. al (US20180016522A1) hereinafter Lant. Lant teaches detergent composition including a BslA -like protein and a surfactant system (see Abstract). With regards to claims 1 and 6, Lant teaches the composition can contain 1,2-propane diol and tripeptide aldehyde stabilizers in the composition (see [0092]). Lant also teaches a liquid laundry detergent composition in Example 2 comprising of 8.49 wt % propylene glycol, 4.11 wt % diethylene glycol, 2.08 wt % protease among others (see [0127]). Hence, the ratio of propylene glycol (1,2-propane diol) to diethylene glycol is approximately 2:1. Although Lant does not disclose a single embodiment comprising a peptide aldehyde, and the propylene glycol and diethylene glycol diol, it would have been obvious to one with ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify Example 2 to include the tripeptide aldehyde stabilizer for the benefit of enhanced enzyme stability in the composition (see [0092]). With regards to claim 7, Lant teaches the liquid dishwashing detergent to further comprise one or more organic solvents in an amount ranging from about 1-80 wt %, preferably, the composition contains ethylene, diethylene glycol, and/or propylene glycol in a total amount ranging from about 5-40 wt % (see [0098]-[0100]). Claim 10 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McIver (US6162783A) as applied to claims 1- 6, 8-9, 11 and 17 above , further in view of Vejborg et. al (WO2019086528A1) hereinafter Vejborg . The detailed teachings of McIver are recited above. McIver teaches a liquid detergent compositions containing a detersive surfactant, a proteolytic enzyme, and a peptide protease inhibitor selected from the group consisting of peptide aldehydes (see Column 1, Lines 9-14). McIver also teaches composition further comprises polyols, such as propylene glycol (especially 1,2 propanediol, which is preferred), ethylene glycol, glycerol, sorbitol, mannitol, glucose, and mixtures thereof composition (see Column 16, Lines 35-44) . McIver does not specifically disclose a trialkyl citrate with C 2 alkyl in the composition. Vejborg teaches a composition comprising of staphylococcus hexosaminidase (a hydrolase comprising of the catalytic triad of the amino acids aspartate, histidine, and serine), polyols selected from propylene glycol, ethylene glycol, polyethylene glycol, among others, and may optionally further comprise a peptide aldehyde protease inhibitor (see Page 1, Lines 31-36; see also Page 23, Lines 26-28). Vejborg teaches the use of acetyl triethyl citrate (a trialkyl citrate with C 2 alkyl) as a bleach activator and builder (see Page 18, Lines 10-11). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaning composition taught by McIver with acetyl triethyl citrate for the benefit of good hydrolytical stability in the product upon storage (see Page 18, Lines 12-15). Claim 18 is rejected under 35 U.S.C. 103 as being unpatentable over McIver (US6162783A) as applied to claims 1- 6, 8-9, 11 and 17 above, further in view of Jenewein et. al (WO2018099762A1) hereinafter Jenewein . The teachings of McIver are recited above. McIver is silent with respect to the use of 1,6-hexane diol as the other diol. Jenewein teaches a liquid composition comprising a phenyl boronic acid, pentane-1,2-diol, and optionally one or more further diols (see Abstract). In Table E, Jenewein teaches the ratio of propane-1,2-diol to pentane-1,2-diol to be 3:2 in a mixture when both solvents are in a model formulation detergent composition. Jenewein also teaches the use of di, tri, or tetrapeptide aldehyde protease inhibitors to stabilize enzymes such as serine proteases and the use of subtilisin related serine proteases having a catalytic triad comprising aspartate, histidine, and serine with regards to claim 6 (see Page 33, Lines 25-26; see Page 17, Lines 4-5). Jenewein teaches the use of hexylene glycol (1,6-hexane diol) and propylene glycol as an organic solvent among others (see Lines 26-31, Page 76). It would have been obvious to a person of ordinary skill in the art before the effective filing date to modify the cleaning composition taught by McIver with hexylene glycol for the benefit for improved stability of a serine protease (see Page 41, Lines 1-4). Conclusion Any inquiry concerning this communication or earlier communications from the examiner should be directed to FILLIN "Examiner name" \* MERGEFORMAT SHREYA PAUL whose telephone number is FILLIN "Phone number" \* MERGEFORMAT (571)272-1551 . The examiner can normally be reached FILLIN "Work Schedule?" \* MERGEFORMAT M-F: 7:30am-5:00pm . Examiner interviews are available via telephone, in-person, and video conferencing using a USPTO supplied web-based collaboration tool. To schedule an interview, applicant is encouraged to use the USPTO Automated Interview Request (AIR) at http://www.uspto.gov/interviewpractice. If attempts to reach the examiner by telephone are unsuccessful, the examiner’s supervisor, FILLIN "SPE Name?" \* MERGEFORMAT Angela Brown-Pettigrew can be reached at FILLIN "SPE Phone?" \* MERGEFORMAT (571) 272-2817 . The fax phone number for the organization where this application or proceeding is assigned is 571-273-8300. Information regarding the status of published or unpublished applications may be obtained from Patent Center. Unpublished application information in Patent Center is available to registered users. To file and manage patent submissions in Patent Center, visit: https://patentcenter.uspto.gov. Visit https://www.uspto.gov/patents/apply/patent-center for more information about Patent Center and https://www.uspto.gov/patents/docx for information about filing in DOCX format. For additional questions, contact the Electronic Business Center (EBC) at 866-217-9197 (toll-free). If you would like assistance from a USPTO Customer Service Representative, call 800-786-9199 (IN USA OR CANADA) or 571-272-1000. /SP/ Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761 /ANGELA C BROWN-PETTIGREW/ Supervisory Patent Examiner, Art Unit 1761