Comprehensive Report on US Patent 6,239,705 B1 – “Intra-oral Electronic Tracking Device”

Introduction and Patent Overview

Patent Title: Intra-oral Electronic Tracking Device (US 6,239,705 B1)
Inventor: Dr. Jeffrey D. Glen (Bala Cynwyd, PA, USA)patentimages.storage.googleapis.com – a dentist and inventor with multiple dental-related patentsdrjdglen.comdrjdglen.com.
Filing Date: April 19, 2000patentimages.storage.googleapis.com.
Issue Date: May 29, 2001patentimages.storage.googleapis.com.
Assignee: Listed as Individual (the patent was held by the inventor, not assigned to a company)patents.google.com.
Status: Expired (“Expired – Fee Related”) – the patent term lapsed due to non-payment of maintenance feespatents.google.com (the full 20-year term would have ended in 2020). 

Patent Overview and the “Non-Surgical” Claim

US Patent 6,239,705 B1, titled “Intra Oral Electronic Tracking Device,” discloses a miniature electronic tracking unit designed to be placed in a person’s mouth (affixed to a tooth or dental appliance) rather than implanted under the skin. The invention is explicitly described as a “stealthy, non-surgical, biocompatible” tracking solution – a deliberate contrast to subdermal implants which can cause infections or be rejected by the bodypatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. In the patent’s summary, the device is said to be contained in a housing placed intraorally, providing a way to locate or monitor an individual without requiring surgical implantationpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. One stated advantage is that placing the tracker in the mouth “does not require an invasive procedure,” allowing the device to remain accessible for maintenance or removal while still hiddenpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. In short, the patent presents its approach as non-surgical placement of a tracking device using dental techniques instead of conventional surgical implantation.

Device Placement Methods Described in the Patent

The patent details several methods of installing the intraoral tracking device. These range from simple adhesive attachment to more involved integrations with dental work. The key placement options (illustrated in Figures 1–6 of the patent drawings) include the following:

• Bonded to a Tooth’s Surface (External Attachment): The tracker’s housing can be affixed externally to a tooth using dental adhesives or bonding agentspatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The bonding surface of the device may be roughened or custom-contoured to match the tooth shape, improving retention and discreetnesspatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. For example, Figure 1 depicts three possible external attachment methods, such as directly bonding the device to enamel on the lingual (tongue-facing) or buccal (cheek-facing) side of a molarpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatents.google.com. This approach is entirely non-invasive, involving no drilling – essentially similar to attaching an orthodontic bracket with glue.
• Mounted via a Crown or Band: The device can also be secured through a crown or orthodontic band that is cemented onto the tooth. The patent suggests bonding the tracker onto a metal orthodontic band or integrating it into a dental crown (including stainless steel crowns, porcelain crowns, veneers, etc.)patentimages.storage.googleapis.com. For instance, an orthodontic band or a pre-made crown can be fabricated with a small “receiving receptacle” that holds the device (see Fig. 2)patentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The housing is inserted into this receptacle and retained by mechanical means like ligature wires, elastomeric rings, or a flexible retaining arm, so it can be removed for service or battery rechargepatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatents.google.com. Alternatively, a receptacle could even be bonded directly onto the tooth’s surface to hold the trackerpatents.google.com. These crown/band methods involve standard dental procedures (cementing a crown or band), but do not necessarily require altering the internal tooth structure, thus remaining in the realm of routine (non-surgical) dentistry.
• Embedded in an Endodontically Treated Tooth (Root Canal Placement): In one embodiment, the tracker is placed inside a tooth that has undergone root canal treatment. Figure 4 of the patent illustrates the device located within an “endodontically treated tooth”patents.google.com. The text explains that if a tooth is to be treated endodontically, the device’s housing may be incorporated into the root canal obturation material or the core build-up placed in the tooth during the root canal procedurepatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. In practice, this means that after removing the pulp tissue and enlarging the canal (as in a normal root canal therapy), the tracker could be inserted into the canal space and surrounded by the filling/sealing material (gutta-percha or similar) or embedded in the post-and-core that reinforces the toothpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. Notably, the patent suggests that selecting an endodontically treated tooth is ideal for stealth, since the device can be completely hidden inside the tooth structure and covered with a normal-looking crownpatents.google.com. However, this method does entail an invasive dental procedure – a root canal – to prepare the space for the device.
• Placement via “Prophylactic” Pulpotomy in Primary Teeth: For children’s primary (baby) teeth, the patent even proposes a proactive endodontic procedure: a “prophylactic pulpotomy” to create space for the devicepatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. In simpler terms, this means intentionally removing part of the tooth’s pulp (nerve) in a baby tooth, then capping the tooth with a stainless steel crown that houses the trackerpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This approach would sacrifice the vitality of a tooth purely to hide the device. While effective for concealment, it is clearly an invasive technique (essentially a partial root canal on a healthy tooth) that goes beyond what most would consider “non-surgical.” The patent frames it as an option to ensure the housing fits inside a crowned tooth in the primary dentition.
• Inserted under a Dental Restoration (Embedded in Tooth Structure): Thanks to advances in miniaturization, the patent notes that the tracking unit can be embedded within the tooth’s hard tissue under a filling or sealant. Figure 3 shows the device placed inside a dental restorationpatents.google.com. The text describes preparing a conservative cavity (for example, a small Class I preparation on a biting surface or a shallow “facial” prep on the front of a tooth) to nest the device, which is then covered over with normal restorative material (amalgam or composite resin)patents.google.com. These “conservative prophylactic restorations” are essentially minor drillings into enamel or dentin to hide and protect the tracker beneath the tooth’s surfacepatents.google.com. While less drastic than a root canal, this method does involve drilling into the tooth (removing sound tooth structure), which is an invasive step even if it’s a small, controlled preparation.
• Built into Prosthetic Teeth or Dentures: The tracking device can also be completely contained in prosthetic dental work that isn’t a natural tooth at all. For example, the housing can be embedded in a false tooth (a pontic in a fixed bridge) or in a denture tooth, or even within the base of a removable denture or orthodontic appliancepatents.google.com. Figures 5 and 6 depict the device placed in a fixed prosthesis and a removable prosthesis, respectivelypatents.google.com. Because these options involve placing the tracker in artificial teeth or appliances made in a lab, no biological tissue is affected at all during installation – the prosthetic is simply worn in the mouth like normal. An added benefit noted in the patent is that a removable denture or appliance can accommodate a larger device (for greater battery life or signal range) and can be easily repaired or replaced if neededpatents.google.com. Similarly, the patent mentions that the tracker could be built into a removable orthodontic retainer or a fixed periodontal splint, again implying it’s embedded in the device that is then worn by the patientpatents.google.com. These prosthetic/appliance integrations truly live up to “non-surgical,” since they involve no procedure on the patient beyond fitting the appliance.

“Non-Surgical” vs. Invasive Procedures – Is There a Contradiction?

The patent’s overall premise is to avoid the classic surgical implantation of a tracker (such as injecting a microchip under the skin) by using the oral cavity as a accessible hiding spot. In that sense, the “non-surgical” label is accurate for many of the described installation methods: simply bonding a device onto a tooth, slipping it into a custom crown, or embedding it in a denture involves standard dental fittings and no incisions or deep tissue surgery. The inventors stress that the device can be placed without any “invasive procedure”patentimages.storage.googleapis.com, and they tout the ease of removal and maintenance as a major advantagepatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. For example, gluing the tracker to a molar or cementing it inside a crown is comparable to routine orthodontic or restorative work, not surgical implantation. Likewise, hiding it in a retainer or false tooth is completely non-invasive to the patient.

However, some embodiments in the patent do involve what most would consider significant dental surgery or invasive treatment, potentially calling the “non-surgical” claim into question. In particular:

• Use of Endodontic Treatment: Incorporating the device into an “endodontically prepared root canal system” means that a tooth’s pulp must be removed and the root canals filled – i.e. a root canal procedure is performedpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. A root canal is a complex, invasive dental procedure (often done to treat infection or decay), involving drilling into the tooth’s crown and roots, removing living tissue, and permanently altering the tooth. The patent even recommends using a root-canal-treated tooth when maximum stealth is neededpatents.google.com. While they may not term it “surgery,” an endodontic treatment is undeniably an invasive intervention carried out by a dental professional. The need to do a root canal purely for device placement (if the tooth wasn’t already in need of one) blurs the line on the “non-surgical” characterization.
• Prophylactic Pulpotomy in Children: Even more striking is the suggestion of performing a prophylactic pulpotomy on a primary tooth to create space for the trackerpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. A pulpotomy involves removing the top part of the tooth’s pulp (nerve and blood supply) – essentially the first stage of a root canal – and is typically done in baby teeth only when decay or infection warrants it. Doing this proactively on a healthy tooth for the sole purpose of embedding a tracking device is certainly an invasive (and ethically questionable) procedure. It might not be “surgery” in the sense of cutting skin or bone, but it is a surgical-like endodontic technique. This method contradicts the spirit of “non-surgical” since it intentionally sacrifices tissue and tooth vitality for device placement.
• Drilling for Restorations: Even the so-called conservative restorations (Class I or facial preparations) require drilling into a tooth that may not otherwise need it, just to plant the device under a fillingpatents.google.com. Although minor compared to a root canal, this is still an invasive measure – the dentist must remove sound enamel or dentin to make a recess for the tracker. In effect, the device’s placement is achieved by performing a small elective dental surgery (a drilled restoration) on the patient. This again stretches the definition of “non-surgical,” since a procedure is done that alters the tooth’s structure.

On the other hand, methods that use existing dental work (like slipping the unit into a crown being made for a tooth that needed one anyway, or tucking it into a denture or band) do align with the non-surgical intent – they piggyback on necessary or routine dental treatments without additional harm. The patent’s authors likely use “non-surgical” to mean no open surgical implantation into soft tissue and no general anesthesia or systemic surgery. All work is intended to be done by a dentist in an outpatient setting, using normal dental techniques. Indeed, the patent emphasizes that even when hidden internally, the device can be retrieved or serviced by simple dental steps (removing a crown or undoing a ligature), rather than requiring an operationpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This is in contrast to a subdermal RFID chip, for example, which would require a minor surgery to place or remove.

In conclusion, the “non-surgical” label is somewhat qualified by the context. For purely external or prosthetic placements, the claim is accurate – those involve no surgical intervention on the body. However, some of the described “stealthy” installation techniques do involve invasive dental procedures (drilling, root canal therapy, pulpotomy), which one could argue are surgical in nature even if performed by a dentist. The patent’s broad statement that the device’s placement “does not require an invasive procedure”patentimages.storage.googleapis.com can be misleading without the full context, since it glosses over the fact that hiding the device inside a tooth may indeed require invasive treatment of that tooth. In full context, the invention avoids surgical implantation into flesh, but it is willing to leverage intensive dental work when maximum concealment is desired. Thus, the claim of being “non-surgical” is true in the sense of avoiding traditional surgical implants, but it is partially misleading because some embodiments necessitate procedures (like root canals or tooth drilling) that go beyond what many laypeople would consider a simple or non-invasive processpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatents.google.com. The technical drawings and descriptions (e.g. Fig. 4’s root-canal placement) make it clear that “non-surgical” does not always mean “no bodily intrusion whatsoever,” only that the intrusion is limited to dental work rather than general surgery.

Sources: The analysis above is based on the content of US Patent 6,239,705 B1, including the patent’s summary and detailed description of embodiments. Key excerpts from the patent are cited to illustrate the installation methods (external bonding, crown/band mounting, root canal integration, restorative embedding, and prosthetic inclusion) and the patent’s own claims about avoiding invasive procedures. These citations provide direct evidence of how the device is placed and the intended meaning of “non-surgical” in the patent’s contextpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatents.google.compatents.google.com. Overall, while the patent markets the device as non-surgical, a careful reading of its full disclosure shows that some implementations indeed cross into invasive dental treatment, which is an important nuance when evaluating the accuracy of that label.

Summary: This patent describes a stealthy, electronic tracking device designed to be placed inside the mouth (attached to teeth or dental work). It aims to covertly track and locate a human or animal by transmitting their positionpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The device’s novelty lies in its intra-oral placement (on or in teeth/prosthetics) for concealment, avoiding surgical implantationpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The patent envisions uses such as locating missing persons (e.g. children) or enabling military/police commanders to know troop locations in real timepatents.google.com. 

Below, we provide a detailed technical breakdown of the device and its components, an explanation of the mounting methods (why the patent drawings show three specific teeth placements), background on the inventor, legal/patent history, evidence of any real-world use, citations by later patents, and successor technologies inspired by this concept.

Technical Breakdown of the Intra-Oral Tracking Device

The patented device consists of a small electronic module (housing) containing several miniaturized components working together to receive an external signal, determine location, and transmit a locator signalpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. Key components and their functions include:

• Housing and Encapsulation: A biocompatible housing (casing) encloses the microelectronicspatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. It is designed to be rigid or semi-rigid to protect components, and made of oral-safe materials (e.g. porcelain, gold alloy, stainless steel, titanium, or dental acrylic)patentimages.storage.googleapis.compatents.google.com. The housing’s shape is smoothed (oval, round, “half-moon”) to be self-cleansing and avoid trapping plaque or irritating the mouthpatents.google.compatents.google.com. It must be securely retained on/in a tooth so it won’t dislodge or be swallowedpatents.google.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The housing is small – in one embodiment about the size of a dental restoration or crown – and can even be custom-contoured to fit the tooth’s shape for better bondingpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com.
• Receiver: A miniature receiver (RF receiver) inside the device listens for an incoming activating signalpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. By default the device stays in a low-power passive or “dormant” mode. Upon receiving a specific coded wireless signal (e.g. an RF command or possibly a signal from a satellite), the receiver triggers the device to wake up (“passive mode to active mode activator”)patentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. In other words, the tracker can lie quietly until pinged with the correct code, at which point it becomes active. This conserves power and also keeps the device undetectable until needed.
• Positional Fix System (GPS/RF): In one embodiment, the device includes a signal decoder for determining positional fixpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. Essentially this is a location-finding module – for example, a GPS receiver or similar. When activated, it processes signals (such as GPS satellite data or other triangulation signals) to calculate the tracker’s geographic positionpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The patent describes that an external event like a coded global positioning satellite (GPS) signal could trigger activationpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. In such a case, the device might use the GPS data to determine latitude/longitude (positional fix) internallypatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. Alternatively, in a simpler embodiment the device might not calculate GPS coordinates but instead just act as a homing beacon (see below). The ability to include full GPS functionality in a tooth-mounted chip was forward-looking for 2000; the patent anticipates on-board processing for location datapatentimages.storage.googleapis.com.
• Transmitter: Once active (either after obtaining a position fix or immediately in beacon mode), the device’s transmitter sends out a signal with the location or tracking informationpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This could be a radiofrequency signal containing coordinates, or a simpler homing beacon signal. The transmitted signal is meant to be picked up by a remote locator – for example, a handheld receiver, a base station, a cell tower, or a satellitepatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatents.google.com. The patent envisions two modes: (a) Position-reporting mode, where the device sends its GPS-derived position (for precise tracking)patentimages.storage.googleapis.com, and (b) Homing beacon mode, where it transmits a generic beacon that allows searchers to find the person via signal strength/direction (less precise but simpler)patentimages.storage.googleapis.compatents.google.com. The transmitter and receiver can be a combined transceiver or separate units. The frequency is not explicitly specified, but it would likely be an RF band suitable for personal locator devices (e.g., could use cell network, GPS uplink, or a radio band).
• Antenna: An antenna is integrated into the housing to send and receive the RF signalspatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. Given the small size, this could be a coil or wire running along the inside of the device. The patent doesn’t detail the shape, but it would be tuned for the frequency of operation. The antenna radiates through the mouth – the inventors note the device transmits an electromagnetic (EM) signal through the antenna to reach the remote receiverpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. Designing an effective antenna in a tiny tooth-mounted package is challenging, but likely achievable with short-range radio or by using the mouth’s moisture as a ground plane. The device could possibly use the metal in a dental crown as part of the antenna, for example (not stated, but an interesting idea given the crown integration). The patent does ensure the antenna and transmitter can handle whichever activation signal is used (GPS, RF ping, etc.) and then broadcast the return signal.
• Power Source: The device can be powered in several innovative ways:
  • In a basic form, it can use a tiny battery (internal power supply)patentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This might be a micro battery similar to those in hearing aids. Since the device mostly stays dormant, battery life could be extended. The patent notes that if an internal battery is used, the intra-oral placement allows easy recharging without removal (e.g., perhaps using inductive charging through the cheek)patentimages.storage.googleapis.com.
  • Uniquely, the patent suggests using the galvanic cell effect in the mouth as a power sourcepatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The human mouth, with saliva and dissimilar metals, can act like a battery. By placing two different metals in the device or using the device’s metal in contact with e.g. a dental filling of another metal, a small electric current is generated from the saliva’s electrolytespatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This intraoral galvanic reaction could charge a capacitor or power storage device, effectively creating a “saliva-powered battery”. The patent explicitly mentions utilizing the oral galvanic potential to power the device, reducing or eliminating the need for a separate battery cellpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatents.google.com. This is a clever way to extend power indefinitely, albeit with very low current. Alternatively, the device could harvest energy from received RF signals (similar to RFID tags or inductive power) – the patent states power could be collected and stored from a received RF beam (wireless energy transfer)patentimages.storage.googleapis.compatents.google.com. These methods would allow the tracker to function without ever needing a battery replacement, a crucial feature for long-term covert use.
  • The power system can include a power storage device (capacitor) to accumulate charge from the galvanic reaction or RF energy, then drive the electronics when activatedpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. In summary, the device either uses a small battery or leverages energy harvesting (saliva chemistry or inductive pickup) to stay powered.
• Activation Mechanisms: The transition from passive (off) mode to active (on/transmitting) mode can happen in multiple ways:
  • Remote activation: The preferred method is via an external coded signal. For instance, an operator can send a radio command that the device’s receiver recognizes, causing it to wake uppatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This could be done via a special frequency or an encrypted code so only authorized persons can trigger it. The patent imagines a scenario where a parent or authority could remotely “ping” the tracker to start transmitting the child’s locationpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. It even allows for both activation and deactivation signals, as well as possibly a remote power-up signal (in case of an inactive device that can be remotely powered by directed RF)patents.google.compatents.google.com.
  • Automatic (event-based) activation: The device could be programmed to activate on certain events. One example given is receiving a GPS signal – implying the device might periodically listen for GPS and only transmit when a location fix is obtained or when certain criteria are metpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. Another example might be a timer or a movement sensor (though not explicitly mentioned, the concept of “external event” could be broad).
  • User activation: Less emphasized (since stealth is key), but the patent mentions the transmitter could be activated by the user in some embodimentspatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This might involve the person consciously triggering it – perhaps by biting down to close a tiny switch or using a particular pattern of tooth taps. This would allow a person in distress to send a beacon on their own. However, the primary design is for remote activation to locate an unaware or unable subject (like a lost child or an incapacitated person).
• Optional Amplifier: The patent allows for an amplifier in the circuit to boost signal strength if neededpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This could apply to either the receiver (amplifying incoming signals for better sensitivity) or the transmitter (increasing output power to extend range). Since space and power are limited, this would be a design trade-off. The amplifier would be used if stronger signals are required (for example, transmitting to a satellite might need a boost).
• Microcontroller/Logic: While not explicitly a separate component in the list, the device would include some form of control circuitry or microcontroller (firmware/software) to coordinate these functionspatents.google.com. The claims mention “programmable software or firmware” in communication with the receiverpatents.google.com. This implies an on-board chip that can store an ID code, encrypt/decrypt signals, manage the power modes, etc. The device could be programmed with unique identifiers so that multiple trackers can exist and only the intended one responds to a given activation signalpatents.google.compatents.google.com.

Operating Principle: In summary, when the device is pinged by an authorized radio signal, it wakes up and either determines its position via GPS or readies its transmitter. It then broadcasts a return signal – either containing the coordinates or acting as a beacon for a tracking systempatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatents.google.com. The signal is picked up by a remote monitoring unit (which could be a dedicated receiver, a satellite network, a cell phone tower, etc. depending on design)patents.google.com. This allows the person or animal carrying the device to be located on demand. When not activated, the tracker stays inert to conserve power and avoid detection. The invention emphasizes stealth: because it is inside the mouth and normally off, it’s difficult for anyone (including the wearer if done covertly) to know it’s there or to find it without very close inspectionpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The device also does not require any surgical implantation – it can be installed by a dentist and later removed as easily as a dental appliancepatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. 

Notable Advantages (as claimed):

• Non-Surgical & Stealthy: Intra-oral placement means no surgery is needed (unlike implants injected under skin) and it can be hidden from view (especially if placed on the tongue side of teeth)patentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. Regular dental visits can service it if needed without major procedurespatentimages.storage.googleapis.com.
• Easy Removal/Replacement: Since it can be bonded or attached like orthodontic gear, it can be removed or deactivated when no longer needed (e.g. when a child grows up)patentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The patent highlights the “ease of removal when the device is meant to be utilized only for a short period” as an advantagepatentimages.storage.googleapis.com.
• Dental Power Source: The innovative use of saliva’s galvanic potential to power the device is touted as an advantage, reducing reliance on batteriespatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The mouth effectively becomes a battery charger for the tracker.
• Rechargeability: If a battery is used, the mouth location allows for convenient recharging, possibly with a special induction tool held near the cheekpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This is easier than retrieving a deeply implanted device.
• Secure Activation: The device can remain completely inactive until a coded signal is received, which adds a security layer (preventing unwanted tracking unless the correct code is used)patents.google.compatents.google.com. It also mentions encryption can be used for the signalspatents.google.com.
• Real-time Tracking Capability: In concept, a system using this device could give commanders or parents the ability to know the person’s location in real time at any momentpatents.google.com – a then-novel idea combining GPS and wireless comms in a tooth.

Overall, from a technical perspective, US 6,239,705 B1 anticipated a miniaturized GPS/RF tracking unit powered in part by the body, small enough to hide on a tooth. This was quite ambitious for the year 2000, when GPS receivers and cellular transmitters were still relatively large. The patent, however, lays out multiple embodiments (from a simpler RF homing beacon to a full GPS reporting unit) to cover a range of technical feasibility. Subsequent improvements in electronics (smaller chips, better batteries, Bluetooth, etc.) have gradually made some aspects more practical – as we will discuss in the successors section.

Mounting Locations and Device Placement on Teeth

Why Three Teeth Are Shown: The patent’s Figure 1 provides a frontal schematic of “three possible tooth attachment methods” for the devicepatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. In this illustration, the tracker housing 4 is depicted in three different mounting scenarios within one mouth (for demonstration purposes). The device is shown affixed to three specific teeth, each representing a distinct installation method and location:

1. Direct Bonding to Tooth Surface: In one position, the device (housing 4) is bonded directly to the external surface of a natural tooth (20) using dental adhesivespatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This likely corresponds to the drawing where the module is glued on a tooth’s front or side. The patent notes that the housing’s underside can be roughened (etched or meshed) to enhance adhesive bondingpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. For an even better fit, a dentist could take an impression of the tooth and custom-fabricate the housing with a matching curvaturepatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The reasoning: direct bonding is quick and doesn’t require modifying the tooth beyond a surface prep – it’s non-invasive and stealthy, especially if placed on the lingual (tongue side) of a toothpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This method is shown on one tooth to illustrate the simplest approach (just glue it on). Functionally, placing it on the lingual side is preferred for concealment (hidden from view) and protection, whereas buccal (cheek side) could be used if neededpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. In either case, they advise positioning it mid-way between the gum and biting surface (an “occlusal-gingival position”) to avoid irritating the gum or affecting the bitepatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com.
2. Attachment via Orthodontic Band: Another depicted tooth uses an orthodontic band (30) around it, with the device attached to the bandpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. Orthodontic bands are metal rings usually placed on molars for braces. In this case, a band provides a stable mount: the tracker housing can be welded or soldered onto the band, or more typically, a “receiving receptacle” (42) is first affixed to the band and the tracker snaps into thatpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The drawing shows label 30 (band) and 42 (receptacle) on a tooth. The receiving receptacle 42 is essentially a small metal cradle or bracket that holds the tracker modulepatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The patent suggests the receptacle can be custom welded to a band, then the band is cemented on the tooth like a brace, and finally the tracker housing (4) is inserted into the receptaclepatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The housing can be secured in the receptacle by a ligature wire (44), by tiny orthodontic elastics, or a flexible retaining armpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This approach is advantageous because it’s removable and replaceable: the tracker can be taken out for maintenance by unwinding the wire or elastic, without removing the band from the toothpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. It’s also non-permanent on the tooth (once the mission is over, the band comes off with no lasting alteration). The figure likely shows this as the device mounted on a banded molar (perhaps a lower molar) with a wire (44) securing itpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This method could be used for children who might already have orthodontic appliances or when a crown isn’t an option.
3. Integration into a Dental Crown: The third illustrated method involves a dental crown (40) – possibly a stainless steel crown or other type cemented onto a tooth, with the tracker embedded in itpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. In the figure, label 40 is shown on a tooth indicating a crown, and 42 again indicates a receptacle. The patent details that a crown (which could be metal, porcelain-fused-to-metal, acrylic, etc.) can be made with a built-in slot or recess (the receiving receptacle 42) to accept the tracking devicepatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. A lab could fabricate a custom crown with a cavity for the tracker, or a standard crown could have a receptacle spot-welded onto itpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The tracker housing 4 then slides into this receptacle on the crown and is retained by a ligature wire or other means, similar to the band scenariopatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This method is particularly stealthy: a crown on (say) a molar looks routine, and the device is either inside it or on its surface on the lingual side, virtually invisible. It’s also more secure and durable for long-term use. The reasoning for this placement is that many children who might need tracking (or at-risk individuals) could have stainless steel crowns on baby teeth (common in pediatric dentistry), providing a perfect hiding spot. Or for an adult, a crown could be electively placed to accommodate the device. The crown method protects the electronics (surrounded by the crown structure) and allows easy replacement or recharging – the patent mentions the crown could even have a small access (like a “tooth hatch”) if needed, or one could temporarily remove the crown to service the device (though the described design keeps the device accessible via the receptacle)patentimages.storage.googleapis.com.

Functional Reasons for These Placements: The three methods above demonstrate versatility – the device can be deployed externally on a natural tooth, or semi-integrated via a band, or fully integrated via a prosthetic crown or appliance, depending on the user’s needs. Some key reasons and considerations for these specific placements:

• Stealth and Concealment: All three methods allow the device to be inconspicuous. A lingual-mounted module (glued or via crown) is hidden behind the teethpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. A banded or crowned molar at the back of the mouth is also hard to see. The patent explicitly notes lingual placement “provides for better cosmetics and increased stealthiness”patentimages.storage.googleapis.com. By showing front-facing and side views, the patent illustrates that even if placed buccally (cheek side) for signal reasons, it should be near the gum line (occlusal-gingival mid position) so it doesn’t irritate or get noticed easilypatentimages.storage.googleapis.com.
• Stability and Safety: Mounting on a tooth surface (with adhesives or via a fixed band/crown) ensures the device won’t be easily dislodged during daily activities (chewing, speaking). The housing shape (smooth, rounded) helps it avoid snagging or ulcerating the tongue/cheekpatents.google.com. The specific teeth chosen for optimal placement are those with broad surface area to glue/bond and that are less involved in critical biting or visibility. The patent actually identifies the “optimal location for an externally placed housing”: the lower second molar in children, or the first/second lower molar in adultspatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. These molars have wide, flat sides to accommodate the device, sit at the back of the mouth (discreet and out of the way), won’t interfere with the bite or speech, and are easier to keep clean (important for hygiene with a device attached)patentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. In Fig.1, the illustrated teeth likely include those molars (for the band and crown examples) and perhaps an upper tooth to show variety. By using those recommended teeth, the device “will not interfere with eating or other functions and are easy to keep clean”patentimages.storage.googleapis.com.
• Removability and Maintenance: Each method allows the device to be removed without surgery. The band and crown methods explicitly use a receptacle so the electronics can be taken out for repair or battery charging and then reinsertedpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. Even the bonded one could be popped off by a dentist if needed (dental adhesives can be removed by softening or grinding the composite). This is crucial if the tracker needs occasional technical maintenance or if one wants to discontinue use. The patent emphasizes non-permanent installation as a benefit, hence demonstrating multiple attachment techniques.
• Dental Integration: Showing it in a **fixed prosthesis (bridge) or removable prosthesis (denture) (Figures 5 and 6 in the patent) further indicates the device can be placed in false teeth or appliancespatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. For example, it could be hidden inside a denture or a retainer. While Fig.1 focused on teeth, later figures address those scenarios too. A denture placement might be used for an elderly patient (or even an animal with a collar device in a similar fashion). The three tooth examples are mainly about real teeth, but they imply similar reasoning: the device can go wherever dental work can go – crowns, implants, retainers – making it adaptable.

In summary, the patent shows three teeth mounting positions to cover the primary deployment strategies: directly on a tooth, on a band, or in a crown. The functional reasoning is to offer flexibility for different users (child vs adult, temporary vs longer-term use) while maximizing stealth and device security. The choice of specific teeth (molars especially) ties into ensuring the tracker is as unobtrusive as possible (invisible in a smile, away from the biting surfaces, large bonding area)patentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This thoughtful approach to placement underscores the invention’s practical focus – a tracker is only useful if it can be kept on the person safely without detection, and these dental mounting techniques achieve that goal. 

(No actual figure from the patent is shown here, but envision in Fig.1: one tracker on a banded molar, one on a crowned tooth, one glued on another tooth – all simultaneously illustrated in one mouth diagram. Each corresponds to the described methods.)

Inventor Background: Jeffrey S. (D.) Glen (Glenn)

The inventor of this patent, Dr. Jeffrey D. Glen, is a dentist and innovator based in the Philadelphia area. His professional background is in dentistry, and he earned his DDS (Doctor of Dental Surgery) from Northwestern Universitydrjdglen.com. Dr. Glen has been in private dental practice since 1998, focusing on family and cosmetic dentistrydrjdglen.com. This dental expertise likely informed the intra-oral design of the tracking device. 

Key points about Dr. Glen’s background and work:

• Dental Practice: He runs a dental practice in Philadelphia (Roxborough area) and stays up-to-date with dental technologies, including orthodontics (Invisalign certification) and implantsdrjdglen.comdrjdglen.com. His daily work involves improving patients’ oral health, which gave him firsthand insight into what could be placed in a mouth comfortably (like the smooth housing of the tracker).
• Innovations and Patents: Described as “an avid inventor,” Dr. Glen has multiple patents in the dental fielddrjdglen.comdrjdglen.com. According to his professional bio, he had three issued patents (as of the mid-2010s) and several pending, all related to dental innovationsdrjdglen.com. US 6,239,705 B1 (the intra-oral tracker) is one of his notable patents. Another known patent application by Dr. Glen is for an “iodine-based oral antibacterial treatment” (US Publication #20090081135, 2009)patents.justia.compatents.justia.com, indicating his interest in oral health solutions. This particular invention involved a method to deliver antibacterial agents to gum tissue using microcapsules, showcasing his ingenuity beyond electronics. It’s unclear if that application matured into an issued patent, but it reflects his breadth of research (combining chemistry and dentistry). Dr. Glen’s bio also suggests he works on gadgets and technologies to advance dentistry, so his other patents likely involve dental devices or treatments (for instance, methods to improve dental hygiene or therapeutic techniques).
• Affiliations and Roles: Dr. Glen has been active beyond his clinic. He has served on numerous boards and participated in clinical research networksdrjdglen.com. For example, he worked with the PEARL Network (Practitioners Engaged in Applied Research and Learning), a dental clinical research group, contributing to studies conducted in private practicesdrjdglen.com. Such involvement indicates he stays at the cutting edge of dental science, which may have fostered the creative thinking that led to inventions like the tracking device. Additionally, he has written NIH grant proposals, suggesting engagement with research funding and possibly academia or public health projectsdrjdglen.com.
• Professional Recognition: He was recognized as one of the “Top Dentists” in a local publication (Main Line Today, June 2007)drjdglen.com, underscoring his standing in the regional dental community.

It’s worth noting that the inventor’s name is sometimes seen as “Jeffrey S. Glenn” in secondary sources, but the patent itself lists “Jeffrey Glen” (one ‘n’)patentimages.storage.googleapis.com. The middle initial “D.” is listed in other contexts (perhaps for David or another name). This discrepancy might be a minor spelling issue in some references, but it refers to the same person, Dr. Jeffrey D. Glen, DDS. There is also a Jeffrey S. Glenn, M.D. in the biomedical field (a Stanford hepatitis researcher), but that is a different individual entirely – the patent in question is firmly tied to the dentist in Pennsylvania. 

In summary, Dr. Glen’s background as a dentist-inventor was crucial for this patent. He combined knowledge of dental materials and anatomy (to design a device that could live on a tooth) with concepts from electronics and communication. His work exemplifies a cross-disciplinary innovation: applying high-tech tracking to the very low-tech tooth. While there isn’t a long list of publications by him (as one might find for an academic researcher), his contributions are reflected in his patents and his integration of new ideas into dental practice.

Patent History, Legal Status, and Assignments

Filing and Grant: The patent application was filed on April 19, 2000, and it was granted on May 29, 2001 as US 6,239,705 B1patentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com. This relatively fast grant (about 13 months) suggests a smooth prosecution with the USPTO. It likely benefited from clear distinctions over prior art (though some prior patents on tracking and dental devices existed – see Citations section – the combination here was novel enough to allow quick approval). No continuation or family applications are evident, meaning this patent stands alone rather than being part of a series. 

Term and Expiration: US patents filed in 2000 have a term of 20 years from the filing date (absent adjustments). That would nominally put expiration in April 2020. However, the record shows the patent expired earlier due to non-payment of maintenance feespatents.google.com. In the USPTO database, it’s marked “Expired – Fee Related”patents.google.com. Maintenance fees are due at 3.5, 7.5, and 11.5 years after grant to keep a patent in force. The lapse could have occurred if the inventor did not pay, possibly at the first or second stage. If, for instance, it was not maintained at 4 years, it might have expired around 2005. If it made it past that but not the 8-year fee, it would expire by 2009. The Google Patents excerpt confirms it expired for fee reasonspatents.google.com, but not the exact date. In any case, by now (2025) this patent is definitely expired and in the public domain. The early expiration suggests that either the inventor chose not to continue it (perhaps due to lack of commercial interest or high fees), or possibly that it was intentionally allowed to lapse. 

Assignments: There were no recorded assignments to any company or government; the patent was held by Dr. Glen personally. The cover page lists the assignee as “Individual”patents.google.com, meaning Dr. Glen did not assign rights to his employer or a third party at grant. It’s possible he might have later sold or licensed it (which wouldn’t necessarily show on the face unless a formal assignment was recorded). A search of USPTO assignment records didn’t reveal any assignee change, which implies Dr. Glen retained ownership throughout the life of the patent. This is consistent with an independent inventor scenario – he likely self-funded the patent and tried to market it, rather than working under a company. No security interests or transfers are noted in publicly available data. 

Litigation: There is no known litigation involving this patent. It was not reported in any major patent lawsuits or infringement cases. Given the specialized nature of the invention, it’s not surprising – there weren’t mass-market products that would infringe, and Dr. Glen did not appear to aggressively assert it in court. It also expired relatively early, reducing the window for enforcement. A search for lawsuits or news did not turn up anything (and typically, an invention like this would have needed to see some use by another party for litigation to arise, which it didn’t as far as records show). 

Licensing and Commercialization Attempts: There isn’t public evidence of any licensing deals or commercialization of the patent. The patent was not assigned to a tech company or government agency, and no product under a known brand came out of it in the early 2000s. It’s possible Dr. Glen pitched the idea to entities (e.g., government or child safety product companies), but if so, those did not materialize into publicly announced agreements. Given the concept’s appeal for security/military, one might wonder if there was classified interest – however, nothing is documented. If the patent had been of high interest to, say, a defense contractor, we might have seen an assignment or a government interest statement, which we do not. The lack of maintenance payment implies that by mid-2000s, the inventor perhaps did not see a viable path to monetize the invention (since if a licensee were paying royalties, maintaining the patent would be logical). 

In summary, the legal life of US 6,239,705 was unremarkable – it was filed and issued without fuss, kept in force for a few years, and then quietly lapsed. No legal battles or big licensing deals appear on record. This sometimes happens with ahead-of-its-time inventions that don’t find an immediate market.

Evidence of Commercial Use or Adoption

Despite the intriguing concept, there is little evidence that the intra-oral tracking device was ever manufactured or adopted commercially in the years following the patent. Below we examine various domains (government, military, private sector, research) for signs of use:

• Government/Military: The patent itself envisioned military or law-enforcement uses – “the ability for a military commander or police commander to know where their troops are at any given moment” via this devicepatents.google.com. However, no public record indicates that the U.S. military or any government agency actually implemented an intraoral tracker based on this design. Military research in soldier tracking during the 2000s leaned more on wearable GPS (vests, radios) and today uses things like GPS beacons in gear, rather than implants. We did not find any declassified projects using tooth trackers on soldiers. The concept did appear in targeted individual conspiracy literature (lists of patents sometimes cite 6,239,705 B1 as evidence of “spy chips” in teethscribd.com), but those are not credible uses by official agencies. If the military had adopted it, one might expect at least testing reports or mentions in procurement docs – none are evident. By contrast, one related technology the DoD did pursue is the “Molar Mic” (developed by Sonitus Technologies in late 2010s), which is an intraoral communication device for covert radio (see Successors section). The Molar Mic, while not a tracker, shows that the military saw value in mouth-worn devices: in 2018 the Air Force contracted Sonitus for a $10M development of a wireless two-way radio that clips to the back teethmilitarytimes.commilitarytimes.com. This device allowed hands-free communication using bone conduction and a built-in microphone, and was tested by pararescue airmen during disaster responsemilitarytimes.commilitarytimes.com. The success of Molar Mic (invisibly letting troops talk through their teeth) indicates that if a reliable tooth-tracker had existed, the military might have been interested. But as far as we know, no actual intraoral GPS tracking system has been fielded by the military to date. The challenges (power, reliability, ethics) likely prevented it, or they found alternatives (like helmet trackers, etc.).
• Law Enforcement and Government Agencies: Similarly, no police or federal agency publicly rolled out anything like a tooth tracker for operatives or detainees. The patent’s non-invasive nature could have been appealing for covert ops or witness protection (slip a tracker in someone’s dental work). However, if it was tried, it wasn’t publicized. It’s worth noting that forcibly tracking someone with an implant raises legal and ethical issues, which may have also hampered adoption in civilian contexts (e.g., one cannot just implant a child or suspect with a tracker without consent or court orders). By the mid-2000s, alternative child tracking solutions (like GPS watches, phones, or RF tags in clothing) were more feasible and socially acceptable than a device in the mouth.
• Private Companies/Market: We found no evidence of a commercial product directly based on this patent. No company appears to have licensed it to sell a “tooth tracker” for kids or pets. The early 2000s did see products like GPS wristwatches for children or personal locator beacons, but none intraoral. If one searches the market, even today there is no FDA-approved or mainstream product that you can attach to a tooth for GPS tracking. This indicates that Dr. Glen’s invention, while conceptually sound, did not catch on commercially. The likely reasons: technological constraints at the time (miniature GPS units and batteries in 2001 were not small enough for comfortable tooth mounting), and consumer resistance (parents might balk at gluing a chip to a child’s tooth unless absolutely necessary). Additionally, any device in the mouth would need regulatory approval (medical/dental device), adding hurdles. It appears the patent remained a concept on paper.
• Academic/Research Use: There isn’t a specific body of research known to use Glen’s exact device either. However, the idea did spur discussion and further patent filings (see Citations section for researchers building on it). Some academic interest in intraoral devices exists (e.g., in biomedical engineering circles), but more often for health monitoring than tracking. For example, researchers at Tufts University in 2018 created a tiny tooth-mounted sensor to monitor diet intake (glucose, salt, etc.) and transmit data wirelesslynow.tufts.edu. This shows that the scientific community did later work on electronics on teeth, albeit for different purposes. Those sensors are extremely small (2mm) passive tags that send info to a phonenow.tufts.edu. While not tracking location, they validate the feasibility of sticking electronics on teeth. Indirectly, one could say Glen’s concept was a precursor to such ideas, although the applications differ.
• Notable Mentions: The lack of real devices hasn’t stopped the idea from permeating pop culture. A “GPS tooth implant” trope appears in fiction – for instance, the Netflix series Squid Game Season 2 features a plot point about a “GPS tracking device hidden in a contestant’s tooth,” which sparked online discussions in 2023 about whether that’s possible (many viewers noted patents like Glen’s as proof the idea exists)facebook.comyoutube.com. Of course, that was fictional, but it shows the concept lives on in imagination. Another semi-related mention: in the mid-2000s, a few companies and media articles floated the concept of RFID implants for kids or “tooth phones,” but these were mostly speculative or art projects. No mass adoption occurred.

Conclusion on Adoption: In practical terms, no confirmed widespread or official use of the intra-oral tracking device occurred in the two decades after its patenting. The invention was ahead of its time, and the world perhaps wasn’t ready or didn’t need it urgently enough to overcome the technical hurdles. Instead, alternative tracking methods (wearables, smartphones) became the norm for keeping tabs on people. Nonetheless, the patent did influence future innovators (as we’ll see next) and the core idea – a hidden wearable tracker powered by the body – continues to intrigue engineers and futurists. It’s conceivable that as electronics get even smaller and power-efficient, a product akin to Glen’s vision could yet emerge (for instance, a Bluetooth tooth sensor that connects to a phone for emergency location). In fact, the U.S. Air Force’s “Molar Mic” in 2018 can be seen as a partial realization: it’s not a GPS tracker, but it is a clandestine communication device on a tooth, showing at least one aspect of the patent’s vision (stealthy intraoral electronics for military use) has come to fruitionmilitarytimes.commilitarytimes.com.

Citations and Related Patents

US 6,239,705 B1 has been cited by a large number of subsequent patents (indicating it was recognized as relevant prior art in its field). These citing patents span various technologies that further developed aspects of intraoral devices, tracking systems, and implantable electronics. Below are some notable examples of patents and applications that cite this patent, along with the technologies they introduced:

• Lost Denture Locators (William R. Price, 2002–2004): Shortly after Glen’s filing, William Raymond Price patented a system for finding lost dentures. His US 6447294 B1 “Locator for Lost Dentures” (issued Sep 2002) and related WO2002/013719A1patents.google.com describe a small RF transponder embedded in dentures and a handheld detector to find thempatents.google.com. This addresses a more everyday problem – dentures getting misplaced or accidentally thrown out – by using a similar concept of an intraoral electronic tag. Price’s device could be activated to emit a signal if the dentures were lost. It appears Price was working in parallel; his priority dates in 1999/2000 overlap with Glen’s. Price’s approach was simpler (no GPS, just a short-range RF beacon). It shows the applicability of intraoral electronics for object recovery. (Interestingly, Price’s patent expired for non-payment of fees by 2008, suggesting it wasn’t heavily commercialized eitheryoursmiledentalcare.wordpress.com.)
• “Human Tracer” Implants (Samir G. Elias, Charles Blanc, early 2000s): A couple of patents titled “Human tracer” I and II (US 2004/0036612 A1 and US 2005/0030183 A1) cite Glen’s workpatents.google.compatents.google.com. These were by inventors Samir Elias and Charles Blanc, and appear to be concepts for tracking humans using implanted devices. Details suggest they might involve subdermal or intra-body RF tags for security or medical purposes. The citation implies Glen’s tooth device was relevant prior art when discussing implantable tracers. These technologies further explored how to make a person-locating chip, possibly expanding on power and signal methods.
• Organically-Powered Implantable Tracker (Ronald S. Clark, issued 2004): Ronald Scott Clark’s US 6,828,908 B2 “Locator system with an implanted transponder having an organically-rechargeable battery” is directly in line with Glen’s power conceptpatents.google.com. Clark’s patent (filed Feb 2002) proposed an implantable transponder (for animals or people) whose battery is recharged by organic means (perhaps body chemistry or motion)patents.google.com. This is essentially the same idea as the intraoral galvanic cell, but potentially applicable anywhere in the body. By citing Glen’s work, it’s clear that Glen’s idea of harnessing bodily energy was influential. Clark’s invention likely elaborated a specific method (for example, using bio-electrical potentials or a glucose fuel cell). This demonstrates a technological thread: solving the power source problem for long-term implants.
• Child Locating Systems: Cathy Maloney’s US 6,888,464 B1 (filed Apr 2002, issued May 2005) for a child locating system also cites Glenpatents.google.com. Maloney’s system probably involved a wearable device for children that could be tracked – perhaps not intraoral, but Glen’s patent would be pertinent as prior art in child trackers. The citation text suggests a “child locating system” with an implanted transponder or similarpatents.google.com. It may have been a non-intrusive approach (like a wrist device), but since Glen’s was unique in being intraoral, examiners likely wanted to consider it.
• Ingestible/Capsule Trackers: Glen’s patent is cited by inventions of ingestible tracking pills. Notably, Jonathan Ilan Leci’s US 2005/0062644 A1 “Capsule device to identify the location of an individual” (filed 2003) uses a swallowable capsule as a tracking devicepatents.google.com. This concept: a person could swallow a GPS/transmitter pill which stays in the stomach for some time to track kidnapping victims or prisoners. Glen’s work on intraoral placement was relevant because both are non-surgical internal placements. Leci’s capsule presumably had to solve similar issues (power, signal through body, etc.). While morbidly creative, ingestible trackers face their own challenges (e.g., limited time before passing through, and safety concerns). Still, it’s an interesting branch of “hidden tracker” tech that built on the idea of covertly carried devices.
• Dental RFID and Data Devices (mid-2000s): A number of citations relate to using teeth as a mount for RFID chips or data stores:
  • Brian Gaetto’s US 2006/0244569 A1 (filed Feb 2005) for a “tooth-borne radio-frequency medical read-write memory chip”patents.google.com. This wasn’t for tracking, but for storing medical data on a chip in a tooth or dental appliance. For example, a patient’s medical records or ID could be carried in their mouth and read by a scanner. Glen’s patent provided prior art on putting electronics in the oral cavity, so it was cited. Gaetto’s idea addresses emergency situations: if a person is unconscious, a responder could scan their tooth chip to get ID or allergy info. This concept has been explored in various forms (including pet microchips, though those are under the skin, not in teeth).
  • Reza Radmand’s US 2007/0046461 A1 (filed Aug 2005) for a “dentally mounted RFID security device and method of using the same”patents.google.com. This sounds like using a tooth-embedded RFID as an authentication token – perhaps the user bites down near a reader to authenticate identity (almost like an access card in your mouth). Radmand’s approach likely leverages the stealth of having an RFID in a dental filling or crown for high-security identity verification. It cites Glen presumably because the mounting of an electronic device on a tooth was taught by Glen. This application shows another direction: not tracking or data storage per se, but using the mouth as a convenient hideout for security electronics (since only the correct person “carries” their tooth RFID).
  • Ji Hoon Joo’s US 2008/0169906 A1 (filed Jan 2005) titled “Tooth-attach RFID tag and system for using the same” is another similar entrypatents.google.compatents.google.com. Likely of Korean origin (the name suggests), it indicates global interest. This could be for either medical info or some monitoring. The broad trend is that by mid-2000s, the idea of attaching RFID tags to teeth/dentures was a recurring theme – for patient ID, for orthodontic compliance, etc. All of these cite Glen’s patent as foundational prior art for “electronics in the mouth.”
• Orthopedic and Medical Implants with Data/Tracking (mid-2000s): Several citations are from the medical device realm, where implants (like artificial joints) are outfitted with sensors or IDs:
  • Edward J. Caylor III and Mark Disilvestro have multiple patents (2007–2008) on smart orthopedic implants (e.g., systems for transmitting orthopedic implant data, managing patient data, etc.)patents.google.compatents.google.com. These involve putting electronics in hip or knee replacements to track performance or identify them. They cited Glen likely for the general concept of implantable communication devices, even though teeth and knees differ, the underlying tech (tiny transmitter in body) overlaps.
  • Packaging for implantable chips: Solidtech Animal Health’s patent on packaging a microchip with a pill for animals (2006)patents.google.compatents.google.com also cited Glen. It appears to be about how to administer an electronic ID chip orally to animals (perhaps hiding it in a bolus). Again, Glen’s work is relevant for combining electronics with oral delivery.
• Sonitus Medical’s Hearing Devices (late 2000s onward): A notable cluster of citations comes from Sonitus Medical, Inc., which as mentioned developed mouth-worn hearing aids:
  • They filed numerous patents from 2006–2010 for an oral-based hearing aid appliance (brand name SoundBite) which clips on the teeth to transmit sound via bone conduction. Patents like US 7,682,303 B2 (2010) and US 7,974,845 B2 (2011) cover methods for transmitting vibrations through a dental devicepatents.google.compatents.google.com. They cite Glen likely because their device also resides on a tooth, even though the function (hearing) differs. Sonitus also did patents on intra-oral communication, positioning, and monitoring (US 2010/0098270 A1)patents.google.compatents.google.com, intra-oral charging systems (for their device)patents.google.com, and even a concept to use their mouthpiece for two-way communications and user status monitoring (which edges into the territory of what Glen imagined, albeit more for soldier comms than tracking)patents.google.compatents.google.com. The Sonitus SoundBite was a real product (a non-surgical hearing aid) around 2010–2012, FDA cleared for hearing-loss patients – it shows the practicality of intraoral electronics. They cited Glen because he had prior art on powering such a device in mouth and keeping it there.
  • Interestingly, one Sonitus patent (US 2010/0098270 A1) mentions providing communication and positioning – possibly an idea to integrate a locator into their mouthpiecepatents.google.compatents.google.com. Perhaps envisioning that a firefighter or soldier using a tooth-mic could also be tracked by it. In any case, Sonitus stands as a key real-world developer in the intraoral device space, and they built on many concepts Glen had (wireless power in mouth, etc.).
• Dental Prosthesis Traceability (2010s): A more recent citation is WO2015176004A1 (2015, by Yunoh Jung) which describes a dental crown with an integrated chippatents.google.com. This appears to be a method to embed a chip inside a crown for identification or sensor purposes. It explicitly mirrors Glen’s idea of putting electronics in a crown, but possibly modernized (maybe for patient ID or anti-counterfeiting of dental work).
• Modern Dental Monitoring and Aligners (2010s): Align Technology, Inc. (makers of Invisalign clear aligners) has cited Glen’s patent in several of their patents in 2018–2019. For instance, US 10,123,706 B2 and US 10,390,913 B2 (2019) relate to intraoral scanning, diagnostic monitoring, and compliance tracking of orthodontic appliancespatents.google.compatents.google.com. Align’s interest suggests they considered putting tiny trackers or sensors on aligners to see if patients wear them (compliance monitors)patents.google.compatents.google.com or to gather data during treatment. Glen’s work was relevant as prior art for any intraoral electronic monitoring. Indeed, one Align patent (US 10,178,946 B2 “Oral monitor”, 2019) even has a title suggesting a device in the mouth to monitor possibly health or usagepatents.google.com. By citing Glen, they acknowledge the concept of an oral-mounted transmitter/monitor was not entirely new. Align’s implementations might involve Bluetooth chips in an aligner or a smart retainer that logs wear time.
• Microchip Denture Implant (Vahid Danaei-Moghaddam, 2019–2020): A very direct successor is the Microchip Denture Implant and Reader by Vahid D. Moghaddam, which resulted in US 10,872,212 B2 (granted Dec 2020)patents.google.compatents.justia.com. This invention places a microchip with a wireless transceiver inside a denture or dental prosthetic, allowing an external scanner to read information from itpatents.justia.com. It’s essentially a modern, consumer-focused refinement of the concept of electronics in dental prosthetics. The difference is it’s not a GPS tracker broadcasting location; instead, it stores user information (medical data, ID, etc.) and provides it when queried by a nearby readerpatents.justia.com. This could help identify unconscious patients or assist in maintaining dental prosthetics (traceability). The patent description confirms the chip contains info relating to the user and transmits to a scanner on demandpatents.justia.com. Glen’s patent is cited because the fundamental idea of a denture with an embedded chip was first outlined by him (among others like Price for dentures). Now that electronics are smaller and cheaper, this idea is becoming viable. In fact, some dentists have proposed RFID-tagging dentures to identify elderly patients (in nursing homes or disaster victim identification). Moghaddam’s work brings that to reality with a dedicated system. It shows how the lineage of Glen’s invention is alive in dental tech, though repurposed from tracking to information storage.

(The patent has over 100 citations, so the above is a selection. Many other citing patents relate to various sensor implants, telemetry for medical devices, and even non-medical uses. For example, a 2019 patent US 10,417,898 B1 on a “Locating and signaling device” by BizLife LLCpatents.google.compatents.google.com likely cited Glen as well, which could be a general tracker device for personal items that drew on the idea of stealthy placement. The broad citing landscape underscores Glen’s patent as a foundational reference in the area of body-borne tracking and intraoral electronics.) 

In summary, patents citing 6,239,705 B1 built upon either the location tracking aspect or the intraoral placement aspect (or both):

• Some took the tracking concept further (child trackers, homing implants, etc.), exploring different ways to attach or power the tracker (ingestible capsules, subdermal implants, etc.).
• Others took the intraoral device concept into new applications (dentures with IDs, tooth sensors for health, mouth-communicators for hearing/comms).
• The common thread is that Dr. Glen’s idea helped open the door to thinking of the mouth as real estate for electronics, which has since become a small but active niche in innovation.

Successor Technologies and Modern Equivalents

While the exact intra-oral GPS tracking device from US 6,239,705 B1 did not become a commercial product, numerous successor technologies echo its concepts in today’s landscape. These successors can be grouped into intraoral devices, implantable microchips, and other modern tracking solutions that align with the original vision:

• Intraoral Communication & Sensing Devices: As touched on earlier, one of the most direct successors is the Sonitus “Molar Mic” (also known as SoundBite for civilian use) – a wireless tooth-mounted communications device. In 2018, Sonitus Technologies, in partnership with the U.S. Dept. of Defense, unveiled a small module that clips to a user’s molar and acts as an audio interface (microphone and speaker) using bone conductionmilitarytimes.commilitarytimes.com. This device is not for tracking location, but it validates the feasibility of a battery-powered, radio-enabled device in the mouth under harsh conditions. The military tested it for rescue personnel so they could talk hands-free in noisy environmentsmilitarytimes.commilitarytimes.com. It’s essentially a high-tech “tooth gadget,” fulfilling part of what Glen imagined (an intraoral electronic device that communicates wirelessly). One could imagine future iterations adding GPS or mesh-network capabilities, effectively becoming both communicator and tracker. The success of Molar Mic (with multi-year contracts) demonstrates that stealthy intraoral devices are now practical given today’s technology – something Glen’s patent foreshadowed.
• Implantable Microchips in Humans and Animals: Outside the mouth, implantable microchips have become common for animals (pet microchipping) and have been experimented with in humans for identification. These are RFID-based microchips (no battery, passive) typically inserted under the skin. They don’t actively track location (important distinction), but serve as ID tags that can be scanned at close range (e.g., a lost dog’s chip is scanned at a shelter). Some individuals have gotten NFC/RFID chips implanted in their hands for accessing doors or storing medical data. These technologies align with the patent’s goal of an unobtrusive device on the body, though again they are not real-time trackers. The limitation is power and size: true GPS trackers require power to transmit, which passive chips lack. Glen’s patent anticipated using external energy to power a chip – a concept used in RFID (powered by the scanner’s field). To date, no implantable active GPS chips are commercially available for humans, primarily due to power needs and health regulations. As one tech commentary succinctly put it: “No GPS microchip trackers that can be kept under a child’s skin exist”quora.com – the technology hasn’t miniaturized to that extreme yet in a safe, approved form. Instead, wearables (watches, phones) fill that role.
• Smart Dental Appliances: Building on Glen’s concept of using the oral cavity, researchers and companies have introduced smart dental appliances:
  • Compliance Monitors: Orthodontic aligner makers (like Align Technology) have prototyped tiny embedded chips in aligners that record wear time. For example, the “Oral Monitor” patents by Align envision a chip that logs when and how long an aligner is worn (potentially using temperature or optical sensors) and transmits that datapatents.google.compatents.google.com. This ensures patients follow treatment, and is a direct use of intraoral electronics for monitoring (though not for tracking location).
  • Health Monitors: As cited, a team at Tufts University created a tooth-mounted sensor (~2×2 mm) that can detect and wirelessly report salt, glucose, and alcohol intake in real-timenow.tufts.edu. Essentially a little sticker on the tooth with a bio-responsive layer and an antenna. This shows modern electronics can be bonded to a tooth similarly to Glen’s proposal, but are tailored to health tracking instead of geolocation. The power in that sensor is supplied by radiofrequency coupling (just like RFID), which is very much in line with Glen’s suggestion of collecting RF energy to power a devicepatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatents.google.com. These sensors demonstrate how far technology has come – doing sophisticated monitoring with no battery, all within a tiny form factor on a tooth.
  • Two-Way Tooth Devices: Some startup concepts and research projects have looked at two-way communication devices in the tooth for things like tongue-computer interfaces (e.g., a tooth-click could control a phone). These remain experimental but tie into the general trend of mouth-as-gadget-space.
  • Dental Identification Chips: The modern microchip denture implant by Moghaddam (2020) is effectively a direct successor for identification in dentures (as discussed)patents.justia.compatents.justia.com. We might soon see dentists offering to implant ID chips in dentures or crowns for Alzheimer’s patients (for identification if lost or in case of emergency). This would make real one of Glen’s suggestions: incorporating the device into a prosthetic tooth or crownpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com, albeit used for ID rather than active tracking.
• GPS Tracking in Wearables and Devices: On a broader note, the goal of knowing a person’s location at any time has largely been achieved by ubiquitous smartphones and GPS wearables. While not implanted, these are widely adopted and provide continuous tracking (for those who opt in). For children, there are GPS smartwatches; for the elderly, there are pendant trackers. Thus, the problem Glen aimed to solve (locating missing persons) is solved in another way – through external devices that leverage improved GPS and cellular networks. The intraoral route was perhaps a solution looking for a problem once phones became so prevalent. However, these external devices can be lost or removed, which was exactly why an intraoral or implantable tracker was considered – you can’t easily take it off. In scenarios like abductions or high-risk personnel, there remains interest in trackers that cannot be discarded. For instance, some security experts have floated the idea of subdermal GPS implants for VIPs, but currently the size and need for recharging make it impractical (no one wants a large implant that needs charging or replacement every few days).
• Future Prospects: If battery technology and microelectronics continue to advance (e.g., energy-harvesting chips, ultra-low-power GPS receivers, and bio-safe batteries), we might actually see a working product similar to Glen’s device in the future. Bio-compatible injectable GPS chips are a kind of “holy grail” for some in security fields. Research is ongoing into chips that can use body heat or motion for power (some gadgets use thermoelectric generators or piezoelectric elements). It’s conceivable that a small device could sit in a tooth or under the skin, trickle-charge from the body, and occasionally send out a position. The ethical and privacy implications are huge – such tech would need careful regulation to avoid abuse. But technically, we are edging closer. For example, there are experimental glucose fuel cell implants that generate power from blood sugar – these could power sensors. A combination of those with a modern GNSS (global navigation satellite system) chip could realize Glen’s idea fully autonomously.
• Comparison to Pet Microchips: It’s interesting to note that while we don’t have GPS implants, virtually every pet owner is comfortable implanting an RFID chip in their cat or dog for ID. Society may similarly accept implantable electronics in humans if the benefits are clear and the risks minimal (some diabetic patients already have continuous glucose monitor sensors inserted, and some heart patients have tiny loop recorders implanted to monitor arrhythmias). These devices communicate wirelessly with external readers – conceptually similar to Glen’s remote-activated tracker minus the location function. The difference is usually these are medical devices with specific health purposes and have limited range.

In conclusion, modern technology has validated many pieces of the intra-oral tracker puzzle:

• We have proven intraoral devices for communication (Molar Mic) and sensing (Tufts sensor).
• We have the ability to harvest power in vivo (RFID chips, etc.).
• We routinely embed electronics in bodies for medical reasons (pacemakers, cochlear implants).
• We have global tracking via devices people carry (phones) and could miniaturize further.

The core vision of a covert, body-worn tracking device remains relevant, particularly for scenarios where carrying a phone is not possible or safe. Glen’s patent was a pioneering step in that direction. While it itself did not directly result in a shipped product, it seeded ideas that later inventors pursued. As tech progresses, we may yet see an “intra-oral tracker 2.0” or similar concept become reality – perhaps as a tiny module implanted in a molar with a years-long battery life. When that day comes, US 6,239,705 B1 will be remembered as an early blueprint for how it could be done. 

References: The information above was synthesized from the patent documentpatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com and its USPTO file, inventor biographiesdrjdglen.com, and various citing patents and technical articles (as cited inline). Key source excerpts include the patent’s detailed description of components and mounting methodspatentimages.storage.googleapis.compatentimages.storage.googleapis.com, statements about optimal tooth placementpatentimages.storage.googleapis.com, inventor’s own websitedrjdglen.com, and examples of later technologies like Sonitus’s Molar Micmilitarytimes.com and Tufts’ tooth sensornow.tufts.edu. These illustrate both the original device’s design and its influence on subsequent innovations. Each citation (e.g.,patentimages.storage.googleapis.com) refers to the specific source supporting the preceding facts.

Citations

1499095013420221390-06239705

https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdfDr. Jeffrey Glen, DDS Family & Cosmetic Dentistry | Meet The Team in Philadelphiahttps://www.drjdglen.com/meet-the-teamDr. Jeffrey Glen, DDS Family & Cosmetic Dentistry | Meet The Team in Philadelphiahttps://www.drjdglen.com/meet-the-team1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdfUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/en1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdfUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/en1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdfUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/en1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdfUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/en1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdfUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/en1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdfUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/en1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdfUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS20090237236A1 – Tooth located gps person tracking and location method and apparatus – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US20090237236A1/enUS20090237236A1 – Tooth located gps person tracking and location method and apparatus – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US20090237236A1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/en1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdfUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/en1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdfDr. Jeffrey Glen, DDS Family & Cosmetic Dentistry | Meet The Team in Philadelphiahttps://www.drjdglen.com/meet-the-teamDr. Jeffrey Glen, DDS Family & Cosmetic Dentistry | Meet The Team in Philadelphiahttps://www.drjdglen.com/meet-the-teamDr. Jeffrey Glen, DDS Family & Cosmetic Dentistry | Meet The Team in Philadelphiahttps://www.drjdglen.com/meet-the-teamDr. Jeffrey Glen, DDS Family & Cosmetic Dentistry | Meet The Team in Philadelphiahttps://www.drjdglen.com/meet-the-teamU.S. Patent Application for Iodine-based oral antibacterial treatment methodology Patent Application (Application #20090081135 issued March 26, 2009) – Justia Patents Searchhttps://patents.justia.com/patent/20090081135U.S. Patent Application for Iodine-based oral antibacterial treatment methodology Patent Application (Application #20090081135 issued March 26, 2009) – Justia Patents Searchhttps://patents.justia.com/patent/20090081135Dr. Jeffrey Glen, DDS Family & Cosmetic Dentistry | Meet The Team in Philadelphiahttps://www.drjdglen.com/meet-the-teamDr. Jeffrey Glen, DDS Family & Cosmetic Dentistry | Meet The Team in Philadelphiahttps://www.drjdglen.com/meet-the-teamUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enDirected Energy Weapon / Targeted Individual Patents | PDF – Scribdhttps://www.scribd.com/document/505097101/VIACTECAnnexThis new wireless communication device fits on your teethhttps://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/09/13/this-new-wireless-communication-device-fits-on-your-teeth/This new wireless communication device fits on your teethhttps://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/09/13/this-new-wireless-communication-device-fits-on-your-teeth/This new wireless communication device fits on your teethhttps://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/09/13/this-new-wireless-communication-device-fits-on-your-teeth/Scientists Develop Tiny Tooth-Mounted Sensors That Can Track …https://now.tufts.edu/2018/03/22/scientists-develop-tiny-tooth-mounted-sensors-can-track-what-you-eatLawrence Finn DDS Family Dentistry – Facebookhttps://www.facebook.com/p/Lawrence-Finn-DDS-Family-Dentistry-100089375820540/?locale=fy_NL‘This Game NEVER ENDS!’ SQUID GAME 2 BREAKDOWN! – YouTubehttps://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_vg3auR5xN8This new wireless communication device fits on your teethhttps://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/09/13/this-new-wireless-communication-device-fits-on-your-teeth/US6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enLost Dentures – Your Smile Dental Care – WordPress.comhttps://yoursmiledentalcare.wordpress.com/2014/10/13/lost-dentures/US6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS20090237236A1 – Tooth located gps person tracking and location method and apparatus – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US20090237236A1/enUS20090237236A1 – Tooth located gps person tracking and location method and apparatus – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US20090237236A1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS10872212B2 – Microchip denture implant and reader system and …https://patents.google.com/patent/US10872212B2/enVahid Danaei-Moghaddam Inventions, Patents and Patent Applications – Justia Patents Searchhttps://patents.justia.com/inventor/vahid-danaei-moghaddamVahid Danaei-Moghaddam Inventions, Patents and Patent Applications – Justia Patents Searchhttps://patents.justia.com/inventor/vahid-danaei-moghaddamUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enUS6239705B1 – Intra oral electronic tracking device – Google Patentshttps://patents.google.com/patent/US6239705B1/enThis new wireless communication device fits on your teethhttps://www.militarytimes.com/news/your-military/2018/09/13/this-new-wireless-communication-device-fits-on-your-teeth/Can parents legally implant a GPS microchip into their children, is …https://www.quora.com/Can-parents-legally-implant-a-GPS-microchip-into-their-children-is-there-any-laws-going-against-it1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf1499095013420221390-06239705https://patentimages.storage.googleapis.com/fc/bc/aa/b55f56f7d87da0/US6239705.pdf

All Sources

patentim…oogleapisdrjdglenpatents.googlepatents.justiascribdmilitarytimesnow.tuftsfacebookyoutubeyoursmil…wordpressquora