Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

This paper reports a MEMS resonator design, in which fabrication with foundry process and characterization is performed to to show suppression of capacitive feedthrough. The paper reports a comprehensive work and suitable for publication, upon carefully proofreading and addressing the minor errors below.

* Authors are asked to provide scanning electron micrographs as an addition to the optical images in Figure 6. 

* Improve sentence structures, reduce repetition of "this"

[line 40-42], .... this parasitic capacitive feedthrough between
the input and output ports becomes increasingly dominant and this electrical path through this capacitor results in a significant drop in SBR (signal to background ratio). This present a tremendous challenge to full electrical characterization of resonators in micron (and even more so for nano)

line 45 - resonate peak > resonant peak, resonance

line 67 - improve sentence .. "And meanwhile the devices were
68 fabricated in a commercial process which makes this method more cost-competitive" 

line 71 - insert loss > insertion loss

line 367 - figure 9 is erroneously written

"Figure 9. Last of all, in the case of DIDO setup, fully differential setup is adopted to achieve the"

Author Response

We really appreciate the referee's valuable comments and suggestions. 

We have undertaken efforts to address all of these feedbacks and promote the quality of our manuscript.

For detailed information, please see the attachment, thank you.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors present a Fully-Differential TPoS Resonators Based on Dual Interdigital Electrodes for Feedthrough Suppression. Overall, I believe it fits for the publication in Micromachines. MEMS resonator structure and performance are compelling. I would recommend to accept the manuscript without any changes.

Author Response

Thank you so much for the decision about our manuscript.

We really appreciate your recognition of our work.

Thank you.