RDMS RFI PDF.pdf

Modernizing the USPTO Reference Document Management and Search System

Request for Information

Contents

INTRODUCTION

DISCLAIMER AND NOTICE REGARDING CONTRACT AWARDS

BACKGROUND

OBJECTIVES

REQUIREMENTS

What we are looking for

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

APPENDIX A: REQUIREMENTS

Technical

User types

Document Management

Document Search

Understanding Current Search Behavior

Representative Scenarios – Current Tool

Desired Search Capabilities

INTRODUCTION

USPTO is conducting market research on modernization options for its Reference Document Management System (RDMS).

DISCLAIMER AND NOTICE REGARDING CONTRACT AWARDS

This Special Notice is issued for market research, information and planning purposes. This document is not a Request for Proposal (RFP) or Request for Quotation (RFQ), or a promise to issue an RFP or RFQ in the future. There is no USPTO commitment or implied agreement or understanding as a result of Government action or inaction taken in response to the RFI or the accompanying documents or attachments. This RFI does not commit the Government to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. The information provided in the RFI is subject to change and is not binding on the Government.

Participation in this process is strictly voluntary. No entitlement to payment will arise as a result of the submission of a response to the RFI or the response to any questions that the USPTO may ask as a result of the submission. The UPSTO will not incur or reimburse any costs for the submission of responses or activities associated with the preparation or response to this RFI, including responses to any follow-up information or action requested by the Government. Responders are advised that the USPTO is not liable for and will not pay for any information or direct, indirect, or administrative costs incurred in responding to this RFI. The USPTO has not made a commitment to procure any of the items discussed, and release of this RFI may not be construed as such a commitment or as authorization to incur cost for which reimbursement would be required or sought. All submissions become Government property and will not be returned but will be handled in accordance with applicable proprietary markings.

The USPTO may use the results obtained from this RFI to support one or more future procurements. Additionally, the USPTO may use the results obtained from this RFI to make a small business set-aside determination. This means that if you are a small business and you are able to provide the content described below, your response may be critical in determining whether to set aside any future requirement in part or in total for small businesses. Any small business provider of the content described in this document is strongly encouraged to respond to this RFI.

BACKGROUND

USPTO is conducting market research on modernization options for its Reference Document Management System (RDMS).

The purpose of RDMS is to facilitate the revision, publication, and presentation of reference documents used by USPTO employees and the public. The RDMS editorial component uses role-based access to create, revise, and publish USPTO reference content. A Web-based search interface provides a robust search capability. Annotation functionality is also available for USPTO employees only. Reference documents in RDMS include the Manual of Patent Examination Procedures (MPEP), Trademark Manual of Examination Procedures (TMEP), Trademark Federal Statutes and Rules (TFSR) and Trademark Trial and Appeal Board Manual of Procedure (TBMP).

Technically, RDMS is currently comprised of:

Desktop Editor (oXygen XML Editor) for drafting/editing the reference Manuals Document content management platform (Documentum) which serves as the document repository Tools for publishing in various formats (XML, DOCX, HTML, PDF) A keyword-based Search function (Apache Solr) Document access and search pages. The externally accessed pages of the Manuals are at:

MPEP: https://MPEP.USPTO.GOV TMEP: https://TMEP.USPTO.GOV TFSR: https://TFSR.USPTO.GOV TBMP: https://TBMP.USPTO.GOV

The user bases of the above are as follow:

Editors: Less than 50 users MPEP: 8k+ Patent Examiners TMEP: 800+ Trademark Examiners

TTAB: <100

External users: 50K+

RDMS is currently hosted on premises (USPTO data center).

OBJECTIVES

RDMS went live several years ago. With advances in technologies (including Generative AI), there may now be new options to transition to a solution that:

Aligns better with USPTO’s technology standards, guardrails, and architecture; and Improves the user experience (UX/CX) and usefulness of the system via robust, modern search tools; and Provides a higher return on investment (ROI)

REQUIREMENTS

RDMS has two distinct parts:

Document Management: Creating, editing, finalizing (via approval workflows), storing with version control, and publishing (in various formats) the official USPTO Manuals.

Document Search: Searching for content from the official USPTO Manuals, with the relevant search results returned citing the specific sections of the documents.

The solutions proposed can address either one or both of the above distinct parts.

While addressing both parts is preferred, improving the Document Search function is of high interest given the state of the current search, the large user base, and the potential applicability of emerging Artificial Intelligence (AI) technologies that could improve the function significantly.

More information on this is available in the Appendix.

What we are looking for

We are looking for information on technical solutions that can meet our above stated Objectives.

Please be sure to include answers to the following inquiries in your response:

1. How does your proposed solutions address the business and technical requirements?

2. Document Management: Describe how your proposed solution supports a smooth and intuitive editing/ review workflow with sensible version control. Describe how your proposed solution can track assignments and their status. Describe your approach addressing the many years’ worth of legacy Manual texts, starting from 2012. All legacy documents currently in SOLR within RDMS exist in XML form in Documentum.

3. Document Search: What technology is your proposed Document Search based on? If using AI, please describe all key components (including but not limited to model types/architectures, datasets, labeling requirements, training methods, text retrieval methods, and any use of Generative AI) in detail. Please also describe the interaction modalities (e.g., traditional document search, conversational search, question answering, etc.).

4. Describe what coding is required to use your proposed solution.

5. Although the primary focus of this Request for Information is on the four Manuals identified above, please describe the extent to which your solution can extend to other types of documents with minimal additional customization.

Please include as much information as possible about the procurement considerations noted below:

1) Relevant GSA Schedules where your company offers this product, if applicable.

2) Other relevant ordering vehicles where your company offers this product, if applicable. If your product is available through another agency vehicle that does not permit inter-agency ordering please explain.

3) Points of contact for questions.

4) Confirmation of registration in SAM.gov (or an acknowledgement that you are not registered in SAM.gov).

5) Please identify the NAICS code that most closely aligns to your proposed solution and use this NAICS to define your small business size status as requested above.

6) If your firm is a small business, please identify any barriers to competition that would prohibit you from competing in this space.

7) If your product is not available on a GSA Schedule or other ordering vehicle, would you consider partnering with a Government-wide ordering vehicle to streamline a potential order?

8) Is the product Section 508-compliant? If not, what steps are necessary in order to become Section 508-compliant?

9) Please identify which objectives can be met by your company alone or if you require teaming/subcontracting with a partner. If teaming/subcontracting is required, please identify which objectives are satisfied by that teaming/subcontractor partnership.

SUBMISSION REQUIREMENTS

Response Package:

General: The USPTO requests capability statements submitted in one PDF file from vendors who are able to provide products which meet the objectives described below. There is a 20 page limit but no formatting or other restrictions on your response other than the cover page, and you may include charts, diagrams, video links, and any other information that you wish in the response. Upon request, the vendor may be expected to demo the product/solution. Please note that a generic capability statement response is not helpful and will not be reviewed. The USPTO seeks Cloud-based commercial off the shelf or custom products and implementation services which satisfy the objectives above.

Cover Page: Please include the following information on your cover page:

Company name, address, Cage Code, and DUNS number or Unique Entity ID (if you do not have a DUNS please note).

Company small business status (e.g. WOSB, SDVOSB, 8(a), HUBZone, etc.). If your company is an SBA-Certified 8(a) company, include the date of the SBA 8(a) expiration date. Please include “OTSB” if you are not a small business concern (see NAICS note below).

Questions related to this RFI are due to the below listed individual no later than 11:00 am (EST) on 11/07/2024

All submissions are required to be submitted via e-mail to Navondi.bridges@uspto.gov.

Responses shall be submitted no later than 11:00 am (EST) on 11/21/2024

APPENDIX A: REQUIREMENTS

Technical In general, the following are the preferred technical options for the solution:

Cloud: Entirely Cloud-based, and have the ability to be hosted on the USPTO AWS cloud OR provided as a service (SaaS) that is FedRAMP authorized.

Minimal coding (including markup editing) required to use.

Artificial Intelligence (AI) if used (for example: AI-assisted Document Search), should be in compliance with all Federal requirements, and proven to be performant and cost-effective.

User types

Four user types that must be maintained in any modernization:

o Editors: Manage the creation and editing of reference documents o Publishers: Review, approve and publish reference documents o Examiners: Browse and Search reference documents, add and delete annotations after successful authentication.

o Public: Browse and Search reference documents.

Document Management

Document authoring interface that provides a user-friendly, intuitive interface for editors to create, edit, and format documents

Content Management capabilities Publishing capabilities including the ability to publish in many formats, including XML, PDF, HTML, DOCX etc.

Document Search

Understanding Current Search Behavior

What Individuals Search For:

o USPTO employees, including patent examiners, trademark examining attorneys, and members of the PTAB and TTAB, as well as the public, use tools to search the aforementioned manuals for rules, regulations, procedures, and guidelines relevant to USPTO proceedings, including the examination of patent and trademark applications.

This includes searching for relevant section(s) of the respective manual, where the search results feature snippets of the relevant section(s) with text hits highlighted therein, that clarify USPTO policies on specific issues that arise during examination and appeal.

How Individuals Search:

o Boolean and Proximity Searches: Individuals rely on Boolean operators (OR, AND, NOT, XOR), proximity operators (ADJ, NEAR, NEAR/n), and wildcards (* [0 to n characters], ? [one character]) within existing tools to locate relevant sections of the manuals. These searches often require precise keyword combinations, which can be limiting and may miss relevant information due to slight variations in wording.

Why Individuals Search in Certain Ways:

o Efficiency and Flexibility: Individuals use search to quickly find authoritative guidance on how to apply USPTO rules and regulations in specific cases. The more rigid nature of Boolean and proximity searches in these tools often forces examiners to use exact phrases or keywords, which can be time-consuming and less effective.

Representative Scenarios – Current Tool

User Story – Patent Examiner:

o Scenario: A patent examiner is attempting to determine whether an application under examination is eligible under 35 U.S.C. § 101, in view of the eligibility framework set forth in the MPEP. The examiner needs to find the relevant sections in the MPEP that provide detailed instructions on this topic.

o Search Process: Using proximity operators within the search interface, the examiner inputs search terms related to "integration ADJ into ADJ practical ADJ application.”

Even though the examiner has captured the essence of the concept, the search interface is unable to find the most relevant guidance, given that the MPEP contains the phrase “integration into a practical application.”

o Pain Point: The exactness required by the search interface limits the examiner’s ability to efficiently find the needed guidance.

o Desired Outcome: The examiner wants a search tool that facilitates a more intuitive and efficient search process, including in response to queries formulated as natural language questions rather than keyword combinations.

Desired Search Capabilities

Desired search capabilities include:

o Ability to search documents using a smart search engine that understands the intent behind the user query, facilitates natural language and Boolean logic-based search.

o Ability to identify and graphically highlight within reference document the most relevant section(s), based on the user’s query. Note that the Search results should not summarize or otherwise generate content outside of the Manual text.

o Ability to anticipate and suggest follow-up search topics and questions.

o Ability to focus search on a subset of sections, chapters, and/or concepts (e.g. users’ favorites).

o Ability to adjust search sensitivity to word phrasing (through explicit toggling and/or hybrid approaches). Smart search engine should be able to accommodate both exact and inexact word phrasing.

o Ability for users to personalize smart search engine to remember users’ top searches, favorite chapters, favorite topics, etc.

o Ability for users to set a default search operator when Boolean-based search is selected (e.g. ADJ, AND, OR).

o Ability to provide information to users in a variety of modalities (e.g., traditional search, conversational, question answering, etc.), while ensuring that all information provided to users is tethered to the source documents.

o Ability to improve the relevance and accuracy of information provided based on user interaction or feedback.

o Ability to save search history.