RFI Questions and Answers Final.pdf

Question # Reference Question Answer

RFI Technical: Introduction &

Submission Instructions

We understand there are no traditional payments to be made to the vendor for this capability. If so, how does the additional exposure and the opportunity to modernize and automate the specific examination process tasks, provide an acceptable level of compensation for the cost incurred in developing and supporting AI-based tools to the vendor?

The RFI does not include a dollar range or value for free or low cost. The RFI included the following language which addresses the agency’s expectations: The selected vendor must be willing to receive consideration that is primarily non-monetary.

Benefits to the vendor include its ability to display and market its capabilities, and the ability to fulfill a critical US Government technology gap on the world stage.

RFI respondents may elaborate on the type/level of consideration that is primarily non-monetary within their submissions.

2 Attachment 2: SOO Can USPTO provide more detail on what forms of "non-monetary consideration" are acceptable to the agency (e.g., co-branding, reference usage, case studies)?

The RFI does not include a dollar range or value for free or low cost. The RFI included the following language which addresses the agency’s expectations: The selected vendor must be willing to receive consideration that is primarily non-monetary.

Benefits to the vendor include its ability to display and market its capabilities, and the ability to fulfill a critical US Government technology gap on the world stage.

RFI respondents may elaborate on the type/level of consideration that is primarily non-monetary within their submissions.

3 Attachment 2: SOO If we don’t offer a free or low-cost option, can we still be part of future paid opportunities?

If a vendor chooses to not respond to this RFI, they are more than welcome to submit responses to future RFI's or requests for quote or proposal that USPTO publicly posts for work related to AI or any other related-topic.

4 No reference provided Does primarily non-monetary mean that some compensation is possible?

The RFI does not include a dollar range or value for free or low cost. The RFI included the following language which addresses the agency’s expectations: The selected vendor must be willing to receive consideration that is primarily non-monetary.

Benefits to the vendor include its ability to display and market its capabilities, and the ability to fulfill a critical US Government technology gap on the world stage.

RFI respondents may elaborate on the type/level of consideration that is primarily non-monetary within their submissions.

5 No reference provided Please elaborate on 'non-monetary compensation'

The RFI does not include a dollar range or value for free or low cost. The RFI included the following language which addresses the agency’s expectations: The selected vendor must be willing to receive consideration that is primarily non-monetary.

Benefits to the vendor include its ability to display and market its capabilities, and the ability to fulfill a critical US Government technology gap on the world stage.

RFI respondents may elaborate on the type/level of consideration that is primarily non-monetary within their submissions.

6 RFI Page 3, Introduction What specific non-monetary considerations would USPTO find valuable in the context of this solicitation?

The RFI does not include a dollar range or value for free or low cost. The RFI included the following language which addresses the agency’s expectations: The selected vendor must be willing to receive consideration that is primarily non-monetary.

Benefits to the vendor include its ability to display and market its capabilities, and the ability to fulfill a critical US Government technology gap on the world stage.

RFI respondents may elaborate on the type/level of consideration that is primarily non-monetary within their submissions.

7 AIRFI, Page 4, Question 1 Will "non-monetary considerations" include participation in vendor led publicly referenceable materials such as white papers, interviews, and web content?

The RFI does not include a dollar range or value for free or low cost. The RFI included the following language which addresses the agency’s expectations: The selected vendor must be willing to receive consideration that is primarily non-monetary.

Benefits to the vendor include its ability to display and market its capabilities, and the ability to fulfill a critical US Government technology gap on the world stage.

RFI respondents may elaborate on the type/level of consideration that is primarily non-monetary within their submissions.

USPTO AIRFI Final.pdf (Section I, "Alternative Competition

Method").

Would USPTO consider a co-development model or public-private partnership structure if monetization is not possible?

The RFI does not include a dollar range or value for free or low cost. The RFI included the following language which addresses the agency’s expectations: The selected vendor must be willing to receive consideration that is primarily non-monetary.

Benefits to the vendor include its ability to display and market its capabilities, and the ability to fulfill a critical US Government technology gap on the world stage.

RFI respondents may elaborate on the type/level of consideration that is primarily non-monetary within their submissions.

This document provides available responses to RFI questions and relevant questions from the USPTO Hour: Artificial intelligence. Duplicate questions were consolidated.

9 No reference provided Could you share the anticipated contract value associated with this opportunity?

The RFI does not include a dollar range or value for free or low cost. The RFI included the following language which addresses the agency’s expectations: The selected vendor must be willing to receive consideration that is primarily non-monetary.

Benefits to the vendor include its ability to display and market its capabilities, and the ability to fulfill a critical US Government technology gap on the world stage.

RFI respondents may elaborate on the type/level of consideration that is primarily non-monetary within their submissions.

10 Question 1 What does the government mean by “low or no cost” in exchange for non-monetary consideration? Can you give examples?

The RFI does not include a dollar range or value for free or low cost. The RFI included the following language which addresses the agency’s expectations: The selected vendor must be willing to receive consideration that is primarily non-monetary.

Benefits to the vendor include its ability to display and market its capabilities, and the ability to fulfill a critical US Government technology gap on the world stage.

RFI respondents may elaborate on the type/level of consideration that is primarily non-monetary within their submissions.

11 RFI Page 3, Introduction Can USPTO clarify what constitutes "low or no cost" - is there a specific dollar threshold or are local hosted AI Models considered?

The RFI does not include a dollar range or value for free or low cost. The RFI included the following language which addresses the agency’s expectations: The selected vendor must be willing to receive consideration that is primarily non-monetary.

Benefits to the vendor include its ability to display and market its capabilities, and the ability to fulfill a critical US Government technology gap on the world stage.

RFI respondents may elaborate on the type/level of consideration that is primarily non-monetary within their submissions.

12 Response Template - Question #4

Could the USPTO kindly share any preliminary funding range or budget expectations for this initiative? Having even a not-to-exceed figure or an approximate cost band would help us calibrate our pricing models and evaluate where low-cost or non-monetary value arrangements might best align with the agency’s objectives.

The RFI does not include a dollar/funding range, budget expectation, or value for free or low cost. The RFI included the following language which addresses the agency’s expectations: The selected vendor must be willing to receive consideration that is primarily non-monetary. Benefits to the vendor include its ability to display and market its capabilities, and the ability to fulfill a critical US Government technology gap on the world stage.

RFI respondents may elaborate on the type/level of consideration that is primarily non-monetary within their submissions.

13 Question #1 Can "low-cost" be quantified in terms of a dollar range?

The RFI does not include a dollar range or value for free or low cost. The RFI included the following language which addresses the agency’s expectations: The selected vendor must be willing to receive consideration that is primarily non-monetary.

Benefits to the vendor include its ability to display and market its capabilities, and the ability to fulfill a critical US Government technology gap on the world stage.

RFI respondents may elaborate on the type/level of consideration that is primarily non-monetary within their submissions.

14 No reference provided

Could you kindly confirm whether this initiative represents a new undertaking, or is there an incumbent currently delivering these services? If an incumbent exists, may we request the relevant details of their contract, including the contract number?

This is a new initiative to explore AI-based tools and solutions.

15 No reference provided Are there any set-aside considerations for this opportunity? That has not been determined at this time.

16 RFI Doc Sec 1 Could USPTO provide a rough anticipated timeline for next steps following RFI submissions, such as expected timing for RFP issuance, pilot award, or down-select notification?

Next steps or timelines have not been determined at this time. Next steps will be determined once the RFI closes, responses are reviewed, and the USPTO thoroughly considers alternatives.

RFI Technical: Introduction &

Submission Instructions

Can we include partner companies or subcontractors in our response, or only our main company?

Partners and subcontractors may be included in vendors RFI response.

18 No reference provided

In page 3, section 1 of the RFI document, it states “Vendors will be expected to provide the infrastructure for the models, to include the compute, storage, and networking assets/capabilities (within the USPTO designed secure Cloud boundary).” Please clarify: Are vendors expected to reimburse the USPTO for the cloud costs incurred by AI model inference

(e.g., running large transformer models such as OpenAI o3 or Anthropic Claude Opus) inside the agency enclave? Or is infrastructure for models defined only as model weights and system logic, excluding the compute required to run the models?

No specific requirements have been developed by USPTO. The agency is seeking industry input related to any/all technical solutions.

19 RFI Page 3, Introduction Will USPTO be making all answers provided to submitted questions available to all submitters, or will companies only be able to see the answers to their own questions?

Questions submitted in response to the RFI posting as well as the questions related to the RFI submitted during the June 17th USPTO AI Hour Event will be posted as an amendment to the RFI on SAM.gov.

RFI Page 3, Alternative

Competition Method

Can USPTO provide more details about the Alternative Competition Method under 35 U.S.C.

2(b)(4)(A) and how it differs from traditional FAR-based procurements?

In accordance with the Patent and Trademark Office Efficiency Act (PTOEA), 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(4)(A), the USPTO possesses its own procurement authority. 35 U.S.C. 2(b)(4)(A) also provides the USPTO with certain exemptions from the Federal Property and Administrative Services Act (FPAS) and the Competition in Contracting Act (CICA). As a result of these exemptions, the USPTO is not subject to the FAR in its entirety."

RFI Page 4, Submission

Instructions

Given the June 17, 2025 response deadline and complexity of requirements, does USPTO anticipate extending the submission deadline?

The RFI due date was extended to 7/11/2025.

22 Statement of Objectives What evaluation and selection criteria USPTO will use to shortlist and finalize vendors?

This RFI is intended as preliminary market information gathering. The USPTO will review each response to the RFI to determine which vendors are the most likely to successfully meet the USPTO's needs at low or no cost. A solicitation may or may not follow this RFI depending on the responses received. In addition, in accordance with the Patent and Trademark Office Efficiency Act, the Agency also reserves the right to award a contract based off of a RFI response.

23 Statement of Objectives There is any tentative duration for USPTO to complete this marketing research and come up with next steps?

Next steps or timelines have not been determined at this time. Next steps will be determined once the RFI closes, responses are reviewed, and the USPTO thoroughly considers alternatives.

Constraint #1 – The USPTO intends to maintain sole rights to all proprietary data, models, simulations, technologies…

(Attachment 2 – Draft requirement final.pdf, p.no: 2)

If our product/solution is selected by the PTO to try out, can we still market the product/solutions for commercial purpose?

USPTO only requires a tool for its own use. This will be determined based on the tool if one is selected.

USPTO+AIRFI+Final - Introduction and Submission Instructions

How much of weightage the user feedback process will have on overall evaluation criteria?

And, How long USPTO would anticipate vendor to support incorporating feedback?

No formal evaluation criteria or weights are included in this RFI/Vendor engagement effort. Responses for RFI questions will be reviewed and considered to determine next steps after the USPTO considers alternatives.

26 USPTO+AIRFI+Final We request a one-week extension for the delivery of this response. The RFI due date was extended to 7/11/2025

27 No reference provided

In the interest of accelerating the evaluation of core AI capabilities, would the USPTO be open to a two-phased pilot approach: an initial, limited-scope evaluation using a vendor's commercial platform on public data, followed by a second, fully integrated pilot designed to handle confidential data and meet all security constraints?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

Notice of Vendor Engagement -

Submission Instructions - Page 5

Could the USPTO please advise on the following

(1) the anticipated date for publishing written responses to vendor questions,

(2) the platform where those responses will be shared

(3) whether the agency would consider extending the response submission deadline so that vendors have at least ten (10) business days between the release of the Q&A and the final submission date?

Responses to RFI-related questions should be posted no later than 7/7/2025 via SAM.gov. The RFI due date was extended to 7/11/2025.

29 35 U.S.C. 122 Will USPTO provide access to its internal, proprietary patent datasets, including classified information under 35 U.S.C. 122?

While data sources will be provided, the USPTO has not developed specifications regarding applicant data per 35 U.S.C. 122, as the implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet the RFI objectives and requirements."

30 USPRO AIRFI Final Can we submit screenshots of proposed solution as amendment in the RFI Response

Template excel?

No, please submit your text response in the provided form.

RFI Attachment 2 – USPTO AI

Draft Requirement

Are there any requirements for onsite meetings, workshops, or deployment support at

USPTO offices?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

32 USPTO AIRFI

Would USPTO be willing to consider an extension to the current June 17 RFI Response deadline?

The due date was extended to 7/11/2025.

RFI Main Document - Section I, Submission Instructions

Should this RFI lead to an alternative competition, will USPTO consider phased funding mechanisms (such as milestone-based payments or CRADAs) to support startup participation while ensuring accountability?

That has not been determined at this time.

34 Pilot success criteria Beyond search-quality metrics, what qualitative factors (examiner satisfaction, time-to-first-action, reduction in RCEs) will determine a “successful” pilot?

Qualitative factors may include, but not be limited to, the accuracy of the tool cited relevant prior art.

35 Future acquisition path Assuming pilot success, which follow-on vehicles (OTA, CRADA, competitive FAR action) does

USPTO envision for scaling the capability enterprise-wide?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is dependent on the proposed potential solutions. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

RFI Technical: Introduction &

Submission Instructions

What is the agency's vision of how increased automation and AI will improve the examination process and reduce wait times on patents and trademarks?

It is envisioned that automation and AI will decrease the time it takes to grant patents and trademarks as well as assist in searches.

RFI Technical: Introduction &

Submission Instructions

How does USPTO see a process to achieve the stated goal of fueling a national transformation of AI infrastructure?

The USPTO believes that the use of AI will lead to other agencies adopting AI tools, benefiting the government as a whole as well as US taxpayers.

RFI Technical: Introduction &

Submission Instructions

How will this process achieve this stated goal? Also, how will this process achieve the goal to reduce application backlogs and better protect IP from domestic and foreign theft?

It is envisioned that automation and AI will decrease the time it takes to grant patents and trademarks as well as assist in searches.

RFI Technical: Introduction &

Submission Instructions

In addition to the capabilities requested in the RFI which build on the agency's AI plan are there any other capabilities the agency would like to achieve?

The agency is open to any capabilities that could benefit the agency.

40 No reference provided Clarification on low cost or complimentary A.I based software tools. Does this include infrastructure/ GPU at the data collection site(s)?

The USPTO expects to own the tool and run it on its own. As stated in the RFI, "The USPTO intends to maintain sole rights to all proprietary data, source code, models, simulations, technologies, data rights (to include search criteria and search results), and/or any other related IP developed or accessed related to, or resulting from, this RFI."

41 No reference provided

Attachment 2, operating constraint #1 states that “The USPTO intends to maintain sole rights to all proprietary data, models, simulations, technologies, data rights…” What intellectual-property rights do vendors retain in pre-existing commercial components included in the proposed solution? Is this clause intended to cover only materials created specifically for the

RFI response and pilot?

Vendors will retain the rights in pre-existing commercial components. The USPTO expects to own the tool and run it on its own.

42 Constraint #1 (USPTO IP rights)

Under USPTO’s data-rights policy, will the agency claim ownership of fine-tuned model weights/embeddings produced from USPTO data, and do those rights extend to derivative commercial offerings?

The USPTO expects to own the tool and run it on its own. As stated in the RFI, "The USPTO intends to maintain sole rights to all proprietary data, source code, models, simulations, technologies, data rights (to include search criteria and search results), and/or any other related IP developed or accessed related to, or resulting from, this RFI. Vendors will be expected to provide the infrastructure for the models, to include the compute, storage, and networking assets/capabilities (within the USPTO designed secure Cloud boundary)."

43 No reference provided

Regarding constraint #1 in the Statement of Objectives document, relating to the rights derived from this initiative. Are we correct in assuming that any patented or otherwise proprietary, pre-existing models and technologies remain the sole rights of the supplier, and that this constraint relates only to 1) derivative rights (e.g. search strings, analysis, databases etc) or source data or existing models that are provided by the USPTO and/or 2) any data, models etc that are developed specifically as part of this RFI, as explicitly agreed from time to time? Could you please clarify

Yes, this constraint relates only to 1) derivative rights (e.g. search strings, analysis, databases etc) or source data or existing models that are provided by the USPTO and/or 2) any data, models, etc. that are developed specifically as part of this RFI.

44 All

IP Ownership: We would offer a plug and play platform that we own the IP for. If we are building a highly customized solution an arrangement around joint ownership might be pursued. Is this something that has been considered?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

45 Intellectual Property

Can you provide additional clarity on which rights and their limitations you intend to claim on the proprietary data, models, simulations, technologies, data rights (to include search criteria), and/or any other related intellectual property developed or accessed related to, or resulting from, the RFI?

The USPTO expects to own the tool and run it on its own. As stated in the RFI, "The USPTO intends to maintain sole rights to all proprietary data, source code, models, simulations, technologies, data rights (to include search criteria and search results), and/or any other related IP developed or accessed related to, or resulting from, this RFI. Vendors will be expected to provide the infrastructure for the models, to include the compute, storage, and networking assets/capabilities (within the USPTO designed secure Cloud boundary)."

46 No reference provided Can you help us understand what aspects of the search solution have already been implemented, and which components remain to be developed or enhanced?

The search analysis solution has not been implemented. The RFI and especially Attachment #2 sets forth what needs to be developed.

47 No reference provided What are the current pain points or limitations the USPTO continues to face with existing search engine solutions?

This RFI seeks solutions that go beyond the capabilities of search engines, so any inadequacies with search engines is not relevant to the RFI.

48 No reference provided

From a cost perspective, is the driving factor behind this effort related more to operations and maintenance expenses, or to the licensing fees charged by tool providers? Specifically, are per-user licensing costs a significant concern?

As detailed in the RFI, the USPTO seeks a no or low cost solution. As such, all costs are a significant concern.

49 Question 2 Does the government intend for this to be an in-house replacement for AI Patent Search?

If the proposed solution includes functionality that could replace AI Patent Search, then the USPTO could consider whether the proposed solution could act as a replacement.

50 Attachment 2 – Section 5.2

Will future enhancements described in Section 5.2 (e.g., AI-assisted office action drafting) be considered within the scope of this current effort, or reserved for a later phase or separate procurement?

At this time, the focus is on search analysis as indicated in Objective 5.1.

51 Attachment 2 – Section 5.1.a.5

Does USPTO have a preferred standard (e.g., XML schema, form template) for structuring comprehensive search reports, or will solutions with customizable output formats aligned to

PCT or Office Action styles be acceptable?

Document generation should conform to the extent that the information set forth in Objective 5.1 should be present. How the document layout looks is open for interpretation.

52 Question 2 Are there components in which this technology will need to integrate?

No specific requirements have been developed by USPTO. The agency is seeking industry input related to any/all technical solutions.

53 Question 6 How does the government currently gather user feedback using automation? Surveys, interactive discussion, automation

54 Objective #1 and Constraints

Could you please clarify the expected level of detail and technical depth for Objective #1 in the RFI, particularly regarding the required AI model interpretability and explainability standards?

Attachment #2 sets forth the type of analysis required for solution.

55 Constraint #2

For the integration with web-based examiner search tools (Constraint #2), could USPTO provide technical information such as using APIs or relevant interface specifications to ensure proper alignment and compatibility?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

56 Constraint #4

Regarding the use of Okta with OIDC (Constraint #4), are there specific authentication/authorization flows or policies USPTO prefers that we should align with (e.g., roles, claims, MFA considerations)?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

57 Constraint #6 For Section 508 compliance (Constraint #6), are there specific assistive technology standards

(e.g., WCAG 2.1 Level AA) or tools that USPTO requires for this project?

Compliance with Section 508 is required, but no specific tools have been identified at this time.

58 Deployment and Integration

Could you provide guidance or references regarding how USPTO expects AI models to be deployed: e.g., fully containerized, microservices-based, or integrated into existing monolithic applications?

The USPTO expects that the proposed solution will integrate with current systems, however, the final determination will be based upon the proposed solution.

59 Constraints #8 and #9

In the context of no direct internet access (Constraints #8 and #9), can you share any USPTO guidelines or best practices for data synchronization and model updates in these environments?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

60 Constraint #11

For the expected collaboration and communication with LPO, Technical Lead, and stakeholders (Constraint #11), are there any formal governance structures (like Agile ceremonies or CI/CD pipelines) we should be aware of?

Current formal governance structures impose no limitation on the response to the RFI and need not be considered by the vendor.

61 Integration Environment Will the USPTO provide a development/test environment for integration and validation, or are vendors expected to propose and set up the environment as part of their submission?

A sandbox environment will be provided by the USPTO, if needed.

62 Constraints #1, #13 Can USPTO provide detailed documentation on its security control baselines (FIPS, NIST, FISMA) to ensure vendor’s solution aligns fully with federal requirements?

The USPTO generally follows FIPS 199 security categorization processes to determine applicable NIST SP 800-53 Security and Privacy baseline requirements. For cloud systems and services, FedRAMP security baseline requirements are also incorporated as applicable. Other considerations for security and privacy control tailoring include the Department of

Commerce Security and Privacy Controls Matrix (Current version) and general analysis of controls which, though part of a particular baseline, might be tailored out due to not being applicable to a given system.

63 Constraint #1

Given that USPTO will retain sole rights to data and models (Constraint #1), are there any expectations for how vendor-provided AI models or pre-trained embeddings will be handled with respect to licensing and future updates?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

64 No reference provided What is the total amount of data expected to be managed by the A.I. tool, and is it split within one AWS location, or several?

The proposed solution should be able to handle thousands of documents each day. Storage of the data is to be determined based upon the proposed solution.

65 No reference provided Is there an intent to leverage existing infrastructure for A.I. data processing and collection? Yes, see Attachment #4

RFI Technical: Introduction &

Submission Instructions

Please describe the current patent examination process? What are some of the desired areas for improvement?

The entire examination process is not the subject of this RFI. Here is a presentation that sets forth the process:

https://www.uspto.gov/sites/default/files/documents/InventionCon2020_Understanding_the_Patent_Examination_Proces s.pdf. However, the focus on the desired search analysis can be found in Attachment #2.

RFI Technical: Introduction &

Submission Instructions

Would the government please explain further in what areas in the current process it seeks new code and workflow improvements?

See Attachment #2, under the Objective section 5.1.

RFI Technical: Introduction &

Submission Instructions Can we use our own AI models if they run inside a secure cloud like AWS or Azure? Yes, as those are the preferred infrastructures per Attachment #4.

Attachment 4; Representative

Technology Stack

Can the government please explain what the role is for each item identified in the technology stack for each category (Infrastructure, Software development methodology, Artificial

Intelligence and Data), and how they are used?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

70 Attach 4 Will all technologies in the preferred tech stack remain in the environment? The preferred tech stack is the stack preferred by the USPTO but not mandatory.

71 No reference provided Will any solution responding to RFI have to connect to every technology in the preferred tech stack?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

72 No reference provided What are the web-based examiner search tools at USPTO? Can you elaborate on their technology Examiners currently use PE2E Search as well as the internet to find NPL.

73 USPTO_AIRFI

Given that the infrastructure must reside within the "USPTO designed secure Cloud boundary," what are the specific requirements or restrictions regarding outbound internet access for the proposed solution(s)?

The prior art search analysis solution must be cloud based. While in operation, the solution must not require real-time access to the public internet to function.

74 USPTO_AIRFI

Will the solution require access to external internet resources (e.g., for updates, external data sources, or specific cloud services)? If so, what are the protocols, ports, and destinations that would need to be allowed through the secure boundary?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

75 USPTO_AIRFI

What are the network connectivity requirements (e.g., bandwidth, latency) needed by the solution within the secure Cloud boundary, and how does this relate to potential internet gateways or access points managed by the USPTO?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

76 USPTO_AIRFI

How will the security of internet or network access be managed and monitored for the vendor-provided infrastructure and solution operating within the USPTO's secure environment?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

77 USPTO_AIRFI Would USPTO be open to a hybrid Cloud approach to AI solutions?

Yes, the USPTO is open to reviewing a hybrid Cloud approach along with other acquisition strategies that may be suggested in response to this RFI.

78 No reference provided

Attachment 2, operating constraint #9 states that “the solution must not require direct access to the internet.” Does this prohibition extend to services distributed across multiple cloud providers, or will those providers be interconnected within a single USPTO VPC? For example, could a component hosted on Google Cloud securely call an Azure-hosted OpenAI deployment while remaining inside the USPTO’s internal cloud boundary?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

79 No reference provided

What categories of examiner feedback may vendors store and reuse to improve their products? Given the prohibition on internet connectivity, what on-prem, automated feedback-collection mechanisms (e.g., anonymised logs or dashboards) would be acceptable?

How specific would the usage data be?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

80 No reference provided

What specific requirements within NIST 800-53 would vendors be responsible for? Given that the solution cannot be connected to the internet, it will be entirely sandboxed within the

USPTO’s secure cloud environment.

Overall, the control responsibilities are based upon whether controls are applicable, hybrid, or fully inherited.

81 Attachment 2 & Attachment 4

Attachment 2 says "The solution must not require direct access to the internet." and

Attachment 4: Representative Technology Stack indicates cloud-hosted solutions. Is VPN access setup to the cloud solutions?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

Attachment 2 – Statement of

Objectives states that ‘USPTO has

AI-based patent search capabilities along with a roadmap for future development but recognizes that integrating more advanced technology solutions offers unique opportunities to leapfrog forward to further enhance patent search capabilities and further strengthen the patent system.’

The underlying functionality being sought under Objective 5.1 for Utility, Plant, or Design are essentially: determine type of application, search concepts similar to the claims based on domestic/foreign patents and NPL, attribute similarities to specific claim elements with citations, and generate a report.

In our understanding, the proposed scope under Objective 5.1 has significant overlaps with existing PE2E Search with AI features such as MLTD (More Like This Document) and Similarity

Search as well as Clarivate’s Image Search tools that USPTO has contracted with.

Can you explain in greater detail the expected enhancements in search performance to be done under Objective 5.1? The supporting enhancements under Objective 5.2 are clear.

Objective 5.1 takes the search and provides analysis of the prior art against the claimed invention for utility applications, against the disclosure and claimed invention for plant applications, and ornamental shape or configuration for design applications.

Objective 5.1 – Reporting and

Citations

May the document corpus be pre-processed into semantically coherent chunks (e.g., claim-by-claim, paragraph, or image-caption blocks) to support LLM context retrieval?

Yes, the document corpus may be pre-processed into semantically coherent chunks (e.g., claim-by-claim, paragraph, or image-caption blocks) to support LLM context retrieval.

84 Objective 5.1 & Attachment 4

If a third-party LLM is integrated (e.g., Bedrock-hosted Claude or Titan), may USPTO data be used to perform prompt tuning or embedding space adaptation within the FedRAMP boundary?

Yes, if a third-party LLM is integrated (e.g., Bedrock-hosted Claude or Titan), may USPTO data be used to perform prompt tuning or embedding space adaptation within the FedRAMP boundary

Objective 5.1 – Utility/Plant

(synonym handling)

Does USPTO maintain authoritative glossaries (e.g., CPC↔USPC cross-walks, chemical synonym tables) that can be used to seed semantic-search expansion?

Yes, the USPTO maintains authoritative glossaries (e.g., CPC↔USPC cross-walks, chemical synonym tables) that can be used to seed semantic-search expansion.

Objective 5.1 – Citation granularity

Is column-and-line citation sufficient for older patents, or must the tool support paragraph

IDs, claim-tree references, and figure citations when available?

Column and line citations are appropriate for older patents, if that is the best way for demonstrating where the pertinent material is found in the prior art.

Objective 5.1 – Utility/Plant

Search

Is USPTO open to retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines that use document embeddings and chunk-level metadata for semantic indexing and relevance scoring?

Yes, the USPTO is open to retrieval-augmented generation (RAG) pipelines that use document embeddings and chunk-level metadata for semantic indexing and relevance scoring.

88 Constraint #9 (no direct Internet) Does USPTO permit managed LLM inference through Bedrock or Azure AI if the endpoints are

FedRAMP-authorized and traffic stays inside the IL4/IL5 boundary?

Yes, the USPTO permits managed LLM inference through Bedrock or Azure AI if the endpoints are FedRAMP-authorized and traffic stays inside the IL4/IL5 boundary

89 Attachment 4 – Tech Stack Does USPTO have preferred vector database engines (e.g., OpenSearch, Pinecone, FAISS) or embedding models (e.g., Titan, GTE, Cohere) that should be prioritized for corpus indexing?

No, the USPTO does not have preferred vector database engines (e.g., OpenSearch, Pinecone, FAISS) or embedding models

(e.g., Titan, GTE, Cohere) that should be prioritized for corpus indexing

Constraint #2 (integration with examiner search tools)

Which internal search endpoints (e.g., PE2E, Patent Public Search, EAST/WEST successors) are available for machine-to-machine retrieval, and what rate limits apply?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

91 Constraint #7 (NIST 800-53) Are there specific interpretability standards (e.g., counterfactual explanations or saliency maps) the AI system must support for each search result?

No set standards are currently in place.

Constraints #7 & #11 (security &

O&M)

How often may we push retrained models into production without triggering a full security re-assessment—weekly, monthly, or event-based?

Based on the changes made a review of the change will be completed to determine what if any type of security assessment would be needed.

93 Constraint #4 (Okta OIDC) Will the solution authenticate as a first-party “service app” (client-credentials flow) or impersonate each examiner (interactive PKCE flow)?

This RFI is seeking information and potential solutions for technology and services that could be acquired by USPTO to meet the objectives outlined in the RFI (and attachments thereto). The USPTO does not want to limit the technological solution proposed by a perspective vendor. At this time, USPTO has not developed such specifications, as implementation is entirely dependent on the proposed solution. The agency is open to any/all technologies or services that meet RFI objectives and requirements.

94 Constraint #2 (Integration) How often are the internal search corpora (e.g., granted patents, pre-grant pubs, NPL databases) updated, and can the pilot system subscribe to deltas or push notifications?

Updates occur multiple times a week based on the collections. How to get the updated information will be determined by the proposed solution.

95 Constraint #12 (24×7 operations) What is the maximum acceptable response time for an interactive search query executed from an examiner’s workstation?

Sub second response time is expected.

Objective 5.1 – Comprehensive search quality

Are there baseline recall/precision metrics (e.g., ≥ 95 % recall on examiner gold-standard sets) the pilot must meet, and how will they be measured?

Metrics have not yet been determined, but will be necessary. Metrics will be developed upon on the proposed solution.

Constraint #3 (cloud DBaaS) &

Attachment 4 (Infrastructure)

Should the pilot run inside USPTO’s existing AWS GovCloud tenant or in a contractor-owned enclave linked via PrivateLink/TGW?

The USPTO is open to either that can accomplish the objectives, within the bounds of required cyber security.

Attachment 2 - SOO Page 6, Section 5.2 Future Enhancements

Are the future enhancements (office action drafting) part of the initial scope, or would they be handled as separate task orders?

At this time, the focus is on search analysis as indicated in Objective 5.1.

Attachment 2 - SOO Page 1, Description and Purpose

How will success be measured for "ensuring strong, predictable, and consistent IP rights" -are there specific KPIs or metrics?

Metrics have not yet been determined, but will be necessary. Metrics will be developed upon on the proposed solution.

Attachment 2 - SOO Page 2, Constraint #10

Will vendors have access to the full patent corpus including non-public applications under 35

U.S.C. 122, and what specific security controls will be required beyond NIST 800-53?

The technical solution will determine the relevance of specific security controls required.

Attachment 2 - SOO Page 2, Constraint #13

What specific FISMA controls and DOC Risk Management Framework requirements must be met for ATO, and what is the expected timeline for ATO approval?

The core considerations for control baselines are based upon FIPS 199 categorization (Low, Moderate, Hi), whether or not a system collects, stores, processes or transmits PII, and FedRAMP baseline requirements. Expected timeline for ATO approval is approximately 120 days from the time a completed system security and privacy plan (SSPP) is created and documented, to include all applicable appendices, to include data flow and architecture diagrams, hardware and software inventory, contingency plan, privacy threshold analysis, and privacy impact assessment documentation. The capacity of the

Assessment and Authorization Team to add the assessment to the existing Assessment and Authorization Schedule will also impact the overall time to obtain an ATO. The product team is required to complete and submit an Emerging Requirements

Intake Request with all applicable information, to include the date which the SSPP will be completed, in order to plan and schedule an assessment and authorization effort.

102 Attachment 2 - SOO Page 3 Will the USPTO consider solutions that do not currently have an Authority to Operate (ATO), and if so, will the agency sponsor or support the ATO process as part of this initiative?

If this system will be in a USPTO managed cloud environment on USPTO premise, the USPTO will perform the assessment and authorization actions for the system as with any USPTO system. Prior to production implementation and deployment, the system must obtain a valid USPTO Authorization to Operate. If the system will be developed as a cloud service that is within scope of FedRAMP (see the current FedRAMP Policy Memorandum - https://www.fedramp.gov/rev5/documents-templates/), the vendor will need to schedule and complete a FedRAMP Readiness Assessment using an authorized

FedRAMP Third Party Assessment Organization and provide a copy of the FedRAMP Readiness Assessment Report to the

USPTO for review. If the FedRAMP Readiness Assessment Report provides a favorable recommendation, the USPTO will make a determination as to…