Dependent Software Claims 14–18 — Detailed Mapping
Additional Computer-Readable-Medium Limitations Assessed Against Publicly Disclosed iRacing Functionality. Each claim carries two separate findings, never combined: the additional limitation introduced by the dependent claim, and the complete dependent claim, which incorporates every limitation of independent Claim 13. No percentage scoring is used and no infringement conclusion is drawn.
Granted U.S. Patent —US 12,528,021 B2
View Issued Claims 14–18Opening claim family
Claim 13 — Independent Software / Medium Claim, and its Dependent Branches
Claims 14–18 are dependent computer-readable-medium claims. Each incorporates the complete instruction architecture of independent Claim 13 and then adds a further requirement.
Non-transitory computer-readable medium
Stored computer instructions
Processor execution
Real-world racing-event data
Virtual environment
Event participant representations
Corresponding physical movement
User-controlled virtual participation
Claim 14
+ user performance data
Claim 15
+ two- or three-dimensional physical-environment representation
Claim 16
+ modifiable environmental / physical conditions
Claim 17
+ user-modifiable virtual equipment
Claim 18
+ defined racing surface
Each dependent claim incorporates the complete instruction architecture of Claim 13 and then adds a further requirement. No dependent claim can be established as a whole unless the Claim 13 architecture is itself established.
Dependent software claim methodology
Two Distinct Findings Per Claim — Never Combined
Additional limitation assessment
Directed only to the further requirement introduced by the dependent claim.
Complete dependent claim assessment
Claim 13 plus the additional limitation, assessed as a single indivisible combination.
CLAIM 13 + ADDITIONAL DEPENDENT SOFTWARE LIMITATION = CLAIM 14 / 15 / 16 / 17 / 18
- Issued claim language
- The exact wording of the issued dependent claim, reproduced without correction.
- Parent claim
- Claim 13 — non-transitory computer-readable medium.
- Additional software requirement
- The extra functionality the stored instructions must provide.
- Public iRacing functionality
- What the identified public evidence establishes.
- Software-level evidence
- The publicly observable or documented functionality relied upon.
- Product / entity
- The specific iRacing product or service to which the functionality is attributed.
- Public source
- A direct, clickable first-party or documented source opening in a new tab.
- Evidence date
- The date shown by that public disclosure.
- Additional limitation assessment
- Publicly Established · Strongly Corresponding · Partially Corresponding · Not Established from Public Disclosures.
- Complete claim assessment
- Claim 13 plus the additional limitation, assessed together and never merged with the finding above.
- Evidentiary qualification
- Any unresolved matter identified on the current public record.
Terminology discipline: this analysis states that an additional limitation is publicly established. It never states that Claim 14, 15, 16, 17 or 18 is “satisfied”, because the complete parent architecture has not been established.
Master claims 14–18 table
Two-Assessment Summary
| Claim | Additional software requirement | Principal iRacing evidence | Additional limitation | Whole claim |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| 14 | User performance data | Ratings, results, telemetry, performance processing | Strong / Established | Not Established |
| 15 | 2D / 3D physical-environment representation | 3D scanned virtual circuits | Very Strong / Established | Not Established |
| 16 | Modifiable environmental / physical conditions | Weather and Dynamic Track software | Very Strong / Established | Not Established |
| 17 | User-modifiable virtual equipment | Vehicle setup and in-race adjustment | Very Strong / Established | Not Established |
| 18 | Defined racing surface | Automobile tracks, dirt-road and rally environments | Very Strong / Established | Not Established |
The “whole claim” result reflects unresolved requirements inherited from Claim 13, not an absence of correspondence with the additional dependent limitations.
Complete granted claim set
All 18 Granted Claims Now Reviewed
Independent claims
- Claim 1 — Method
- Claim 7 — System
- Claim 13 — Computer-readable medium
Dependent claims
- Claims 2–6
- Claims 8–12
- Claims 14–18
The subsequent sections should now stop analysing claims in isolation and instead consolidate the findings across the entire granted claim set.
Section closing statement
Claims 14–18 — Current Public-Evidence Position
The additional software limitations introduced by Claims 14–18 show substantial correspondence with publicly disclosed iRacing functionality.
- Claim 14User performance dataStrong correspondence.
- Claim 153D physical racing environmentVery strong correspondence.
- Claim 16Modifiable environmental / physical conditionsVery strong correspondence.
- Claim 17User-modifiable virtual equipmentVery strong correspondence.
- Claim 18Defined racing surfacesVery strong correspondence.
None of these additional-feature findings independently establishes the complete dependent claim, because each incorporates Claim 13 and the core real-world-event-data and physical-participant-movement limitations remain unresolved from the currently identified public record.
Claim family consolidated result
Current Public-Evidence Position
Independent claims
- Claim 1: complete correspondence not established.
- Claim 7: complete correspondence not established.
- Claim 13: complete correspondence not established.
Primary reason: the real-world-event-feed and physical-participant-movement bridge remains unestablished on the current public record.
Dependent additional limitations
Strong evidence identified across each corresponding trio:
- Claims 2 / 8 / 14
- Claims 3 / 9 / 15
- Claims 4 / 10 / 16
- Claims 5 / 11 / 17
- Claims 6 / 12 / 18
This is a public-information mapping conclusion. It is not an infringement opinion and does not purport to be one.
What this means strategically
The Patent's Strategic Territory Is Becoming Clearer
iRacing publicly operates much of the surrounding technical infrastructure and many of the additional features expressly identified throughout the dependent claim set.
The principal patent question is increasingly concentrated on whether iRacing's platform does now, or may in future, connect that existing infrastructure to specific real-world racing-event data and event-derived participant movement.
No future-functionality assumption: nothing in this presentation implies that iRacing has announced plans to implement event-derived participant functionality. No such plan is evidenced on the current public record. Strategic relevance is distinct from a factual assertion about product roadmap.
18 granted claims reviewed
The Analytical Question Has Narrowed
iRacing's publicly disclosed technology strongly corresponds with numerous surrounding and dependent features of the granted patent.
The central remaining question concerns the physical-to-virtual event bridge contained within the three independent claims.
Physical race
Event data
Physical participant movement
Corresponding virtual participant
User competes
This is the core unresolved patent-mapping question
Next
Consolidated Technical Correspondence & Evidentiary Gaps
Whole-patent analysis across Claims 1–18.
The next section moves away from individual claim charts and consolidates all strong areas of correspondence, all partial areas and all unresolved limitations, together with the recurring architecture across Claims 1, 7 and 13, dependent claim strengths, evidence provenance, product and entity attribution, and what additional information would materially alter the analysis.