RFI Attachment 3 - Consolidated Question and Answer Sheet 10JUN2026.pdf

Question # Reference Question Category (Contract or Technical)

Question Answer

1 Section 5.2.1 Technical Would the USPTO consider a deployment architecture in which a Contractor provides a fully tested and operational containerized AI image search and retrieval capability that is deployed within the environment of a Government-selected integrator or hosting provider that already maintains the required FedRAMP authorization and ATO posture?

No, as the objective is to acquire a FedRAMP-authorized Software-as-a-Service (SaaS) image search platform.

2 PWS Scope & Task 4; Att 1 Q3

Technical The required number of source authorities is stated inconsistently: PWS Scope cites “at least 80 international authorities,” Task 4 cites “at least 64 specified global authorities,” and Attachment 1 Question 3 cites “80+.” Please confirm the minimum number of authorities required and provide the definitive list of required authorities (and which are mandatory vs. desired).

It should read 80 + international authorities.

3 PWS Objective/Scope/Task 4; PRS Obj. 4 (TC 2900)

Technical The Objective and Scope emphasize Design and Utility; Plant is named for ingestion but not in the search features; and PRS Objective 4 references UI/UX customization for “TC 2900” (Designs). Please confirm the priority/initial operating capability (e.g., Design/TC 2900 first), and whether partial-scope solutions (per the Att 1 Q3 note) may advance through Phase 1 eligibility and be demonstrated/evaluated per patent type in Phase 2.

Per the PTAG RFI "The Government preference is to obtain a complete turnkey solution for all 3 patent types, but reserves the right to issue multiple awards/solicitations if it is in the best interest of the Government."

4 PWS Task 2; RFI §B Technical The PWS requires a FedRAMP-authorized solution but does not state the impact level. Please confirm the required FedRAMP baseline (Low / Moderate / High) given the sensitivity of pre-publication patent data, and confirm whether a “FedRAMP In Process” solution with a named agency sponsor is acceptable for (a) Phase 1 RFI eligibility and (b) eventual award.

Moderate impact level. The solution must be FedRAMP-authorized. FedRAMP "In Process" status is not sufficient for eventual award.

5 Att 1 Q3 vs. PRS Obj. 2 Technical Performance targets appear in two forms: Attachment 1 Q3 cites a “sub-6.0 second search execution” SLA, while PRS Objective 2 cites “sub-second page loads.” Please confirm the specific, measurable targets for (a) image-search execution time and (b) UI/page response, and the conditions under which they are measured (database size, and concurrency e.g., number of simultaneous users out of the ~12,000 user base).

The sub-6.0 second search execution SLA refers to executing the search, where the sub-second page loads refers to loading/viewing the results Search query execution and display of results in selected view <= 6 seconds Load of next page of search results upon scroll <= 1 second Display of document upon selection from results view <= 2 seconds

6 PWS Task 2 & Task 3 Technical Task 2 requires immediate deletion of uploaded images and derived representations (e.g., embeddings) upon session end. Please clarify how this reconciles with Task 3 features that imply persistence saved project folders, dashboard layouts, and project collaboration and confirm whether uploaded images/embeddings may be (a) cached within an active session, (b) retained in a user’s saved project, or (c) used to improve models or indices. What constitutes “session end”?

The session end refers to the 'idle timeout' or when the user actively closes out of the tool

7 PWS Scope & Task 2;

Deliverable D18

Technical AI-governance references are inconsistent: the Scope and Deliverable D18 cite “EO 13960 and 14179,” while Task 2 cites “EO 13960 and 14110.” Please confirm the governing AI Executive Order(s) and identify any additional frameworks expected (e.g., NIST AI RMF, USPTO AI-use or model-documentation standards) for the AI Transparency & Explainability deliverable.

Executive Order 14110 was rescinded and not applicable.

8 PWS Task 3 Technical Please describe the USPTO IAAM/Okta integration pattern expected: OpenID Connect only or also SAML; whether automated user provisioning/de-provisioning (SCIM) for ~12,000 users is required; and whether the USPTO Okta tenant supports federation to an external (vendor-hosted) SaaS application.

There is no current automation for user provisioning on the USPTO side. Users must be added to our OKTA group and the vendor's OKTA group/authentication mechanism.

9 PWS Task 3 (Export); Task 1 (Reporting)

Technical Task 3 requires exports that integrate “into the patent file wrapper.” Please describe the required integration interface (e.g., Patent Center, IFW, DAV, or a documented API) and confirm whether the solution must write back to USPTO systems or whether export is file-based only (PDF/CSV). Are there USPTO data feeds (e.g., CPC, USPC, file-wrapper images) the Government will provide?

The user must be able to save the search export in a format that can be uploaded in an Office action (PDF and/or supplementing XML). Then from there, the internal tools will support integrating those results into the patent file wrapper.

10 PWS Task 4; PRS Obj. 5 Technical For the aggregated global Design/Utility/Plant, trademark, and industrial-design collections, will the Government rely entirely on Contractor-licensed data sources, or provide any USPTO/CPC data? Are there licensing constraints the Contractor must satisfy for non-USPTO authorities (e.g., EUIPO, WIPO, CNIPA, JPO)? Please also confirm the accuracy/recall baseline (UAT baseline) the Government will use to assess “accurate similarity rankings” and classification suggestions.

The USPTO will rely entirely on contractor-licensed data sources as well as USPTO/CPC data. We have no licensing constraints that the Contractor must satisfy for non-USPTO authorities.

11 PWS Special Requirements

— IP & Data Rights

Contract The PWS designates customized code, scripts, APIs, algorithms, and unique UIs as “Special Works” with exclusive Government ownership. For a commercial SaaS where “customization” is largely configuration of the Contractor’s base platform, please clarify how the Special Works ownership clause applies to configuration vs. net-new code, and whether standard commercial SaaS license terms with FAR Part 12 Government data rights may govern such customizations.

The final terms will be stated in the solicitations, but below is a general summary. Base Platform: The Contractor’s pre-existing, commercial-off-the-shelf (COTS) software, infrastructure, and underlying architecture that existed prior to engaging with the Government on this project. Customized Code: Any software, source code, scripts, APIs, user interfaces, algorithms, Government-specific outputs or configurations developed, written, or modified by the Contractor specifically to meet the requirements of this contract. Note only customized code will be treated as special works.

12 RFI §A; Att 1 — Corporate Profile

Contract The Corporate Profile requests “OEM or Authorized Reseller.” Please confirm whether an authorized reseller / systems integrator — teamed with the OEM that holds the FedRAMP authorization may submit as the prime respondent, whether a team may submit a single RFI response, and how the Government will weigh OEM vs. reseller status when determining which vendors are “most likely to successfully meet” the requirement.

The OEM or Authorized Reseller may participate in this PTAG market research.

13 RFI §B — Multiple Awards / Phase 2

Contract The Government notes it may issue multiple awards/solicitations by patent type. Will Phase 1 eligibility determinations and Phase 2 product demonstrations be made per patent type (Design / Utility / Plant), such that a single-type respondent (e.g., Utility-only) can advance? For the July 13–17 demonstrations, will the Government provide representative query images/test data, or is vendor-supplied data expected?

Per the PTAG RFI "The Government preference is to obtain a complete turnkey solution for all 3 patent types, but reserves the right to issue multiple awards/solicitations if it is in the best interest of the Government." Also, the Government plans on sending on-the-spot image/text for Phase 2.

14 Att 1 — Corporate Profile

(NAICS 541519)

Contract The profile references NAICS 541519 ($34M size standard). Will the resulting alternative-competition solicitation be a small-business set-aside (or otherwise consider business size in forming the competitive pool)? Additionally, please confirm the intended date for “Anticipated Business Size Status on 7/01/2025,” which may be a typo for 7/01/2026.

The alternate competition solicitation strategy will be based on the PTAG RFI market research assessment and the date is a typo.

15 PWS Section 2.2 Technical What FedRAMP level is required (Moderate or High)? Moderate impact level.

16 PWS Section 4.1 Contract What is the anticipated contract type and period of performance? The anticipated contract type is firm fixed price and the anticipated period of performance is a base period (12 months) and 4 option periods (12 months each)

17 PTAG RFI document Technical What are the evaluation criteria for Phase 2 demonstrations? The team will be assessing the ease of use, response times, features available to assist users perform the image based search for design, utility, and plants classification areas, both US and international. The team will be looking for how images are uploaded to allow for searching and how a search export is provided documenting the user's search.

Per the PTAG RFI "The Government preference is to obtain a complete turnkey solution for all 3 patent types, but reserves the right to issue multiple awards/solicitations if it is in the best interest of the Government. If a full solution is not currently implemented, please provide the partial solution with a roadmap on how quickly the complete solution may be implemented, if applicable. If there are any challenges to achieving the completed solution, please highlight those as well.

The team will also be looking to determine how low quality images uploaded as part of the search can be accommodated.

Overall the Government plans to assess quality searches, core requirements and functionality, features, performance, reporting, customization level, user experience, security, interoperability and scalability

18 PWS Section 5.3.1 Technical What integrations beyond Okta are required? Integration with the USPTO's OKTA solution and the OKTA/authentication mechanism on the vendors side is required. Additionally, exporting the search strategy.

However, the user must be able to upload images, some which are downloaded from the patent file wrapper using internal tools. The user must also be able to save the search export in a format that can be uploaded/imported in the internal existing tool for drafting/submitting an Office action (PDF and/or supplementing XML). Then from there, the internal tools will support integrating those results into the patent file wrapper.

Image search platform product link integration into existing internal search tool.

19 2.2, 5.4.1, 5.4.2 Technical Can USPTO provide additional context regarding the current image search environment and any anticipated transition requirements from existing solutions, including expected migration, coexistence, or interoperability needs?

The USPTO currently utilizes a SaaS AI driven image search tool with access to databases including design patents, regulations, and industrial designs from global intellectual property offices. The USPTO will be assessing all solutions independently of what is currently being used. There is currently no planned migration from one system to the next.

20 2.2, 4.2.2, 5.4.1, 5.4.3 Technical The draft PWS expands beyond design patents to include utility patents across all CPC domains. Can USPTO provide additional detail regarding the relative importance of utility patent image search capabilities versus design patent image search capabilities in the evaluation process?

Per the PTAG RFI "The Government preference is to obtain a complete turnkey solution for all 3 patent types, but reserves the right to issue multiple awards/solicitations if it is in the best interest of the Government."

21 2.3, 3.2, 4.1, 4.2.4, 5.3.2 Technical The PWS references workflow alignment and integration into existing examination processes. Can USPTO clarify whether the agency envisions the solution as a standalone image-search platform or as a component within a broader examiner workflow that integrates with patent search, non-patent literature, prosecution history, classification, and other examination tools?

The tool USPTO is seeking may be provided on a standalone image-search platform.

However, the user must be able to upload images, some which are downloaded from the patent file wrapper using internal tools. The user must also be able to save the search export in a format that can be uploaded/imported in the internal existing tool for drafting/submitting an Office action (PDF and/or supplementing XML). Then from there, the internal tools will support integrating those results into the patent file wrapper.

Image search platform product link integration into existing internal search tool.

22 4.2.3 Technical Will USPTO provide standard use cases, datasets, or evaluation scenarios that respondents should prepare for during the Phase 2 product demonstrations? The Government plans on sending on-the-spot image/text for Phase 2.

23 2.3, 4.2.4, 5.3.2 Technical Can USPTO provide additional detail regarding the expected scope of workflow customization, including whether customization is expected at the Technology Center, business unit, or individual examiner level?

The tool USPTO is seeking may be provided on a standalone image-search platform which supports all classification areas (Design, Plant and Utility).

However, the user must be able to upload images, some which are downloaded from the patent file wrapper using internal tools. The user must also be able to save the search export in a format that can be uploaded/imported in the internal existing tool for drafting/submitting an Office action (PDF and/or supplementing XML). Then from there, the internal tools will support integrating those results into the patent file wrapper.

Refinements may be needed to support examination for various technical areas so that the user may easily exclude areas that are easily confused within a particular technology.

While this may currently be resolved by identifying all classification areas that should be included, there may be a need to exclude certain areas based on CPC symbols.

Additionally, it is important to maintain the ability to make changes that impact utility searching without impacting the way in which design or plant searches are conducted.

Thus, there may be a need for supporting refinements for certain patent types (utility, plant, design).

24 4.2.5, 5.2.4 Technical Can USPTO provide further guidance regarding expectations for AI explainability, model transparency, auditability, and bias documentation, particularly for image similarity and classification recommendations?

The models must operate without introducing bias and ensuring thoroughness in the entire corpus (or the corpus not excluded from the user's search). Yes, these items will need to be described and documented fully, including support for how these areas are accounted for.

25 5.1.2 Contract Does USPTO currently anticipate a single award covering all patent types and capabilities, or is the agency actively considering multiple awards based on technical specialization, patent domain coverage, or component capabilities?

Per the PTAG RFI "The Government preference is to obtain a complete turnkey solution for all 3 patent types, but reserves the right to issue multiple awards/solicitations if it is in the best interest of the Government."

26 4.1, 5.3.4, 5.5 Contract Is USPTO planning a phased deployment approach, or does the agency anticipate enterprise-wide deployment to the full examiner population following implementation? This depends on the PTAG market research assessment.

27 4.2.5, 5.3.1 Technical Beyond Okta and identity management integration, are there additional USPTO systems, APIs, examiner tools, or workflow applications that respondents should assume will require integration?

The tool USPTO is seeking may be provided on a standalone image-search platform which supports all classification areas (Design, Plant and Utility).

However, the user must be able to upload images, some which are downloaded from the patent file wrapper using internal tools. The user must also be able to save the search export in a format that can be uploaded/imported in the internal existing tool for drafting/submitting an Office action (PDF and/or supplementing XML). Then from there, the internal tools will support integrating those results into the patent file wrapper.

Image search platform product link integration into existing internal search tool. We are relaying solely on Contractor licensed database sources.

28 4.1, 4.2.4 Contract Does USPTO anticipate evaluating only single-vendor solutions, or would the agency consider responses that incorporate strategic partners providing specialized capabilities (e.g., AI/image search, content, data, workflow integration, or federal systems integration)? If partnerships are permitted, are there any preferred teaming structures or limitations that respondents should consider?

Per the PTAG RFI "The Government preference is to obtain a complete turnkey solution for all 3 patent types, but reserves the right to issue multiple awards/solicitations if it is in the best interest of the Government."

29 4.1 Contract Beyond the Phase 2 demonstration, can USPTO provide additional guidance regarding how respondents will be assessed and the relative importance of factors such as image-search performance, utility patent coverage, workflow integration, content coverage, security/compliance, scalability, implementation approach, and operational excellence?

The Government plans to assess quality searches, core requirements and functionality, features, performance, reporting, customization level, user experience, security, interoperability and scalability

30 5.2.1, 5.2.2, 5.2.3 Technical The Draft PWS requires a FedRAMP-authorized SaaS solution and a full USPTO ATO. A comprehensive solution may involve multiple components, including AI/ML services, third-party data layers, or supporting infrastructure. (1) Must all components be independently FedRAMP-authorized, or may components outside the primary authorization boundary be included if documented within the SSPP? (2) If permissible, what approval process applies (e.g., inherited controls, ISAs, or COR discretion during ATO review)?

The FedRAMP-authorized SaaS solution should adhere to FedRAMP Authorization Boundary Guidance (https://www.fedramp.gov/resources/documents/CSP_A_FedRAMP_Authorization_Bou ndary_Guidance.pdf), which discusses defining your authorization boundary in the cloud, federal information (data) in the cloud, metadata associated with the cloud, interconnections in the cloud, external services in the cloud, leveraging external services with a FedRAMP authorization, and corporate services.

Sheet1