Next Article in Journal
Deposition of FeOOH Layer on Ultrathin Hematite Nanoflakes to Promote Photoelectrochemical Water Splitting
Previous Article in Journal
A Whole W-Band Multi-Polarization Horn Antenna Based on Boifot-Type OMT
Previous Article in Special Issue
Design and Simulation of InGaN-Based Red Vertical-Cavity Surface-Emitting Lasers
 
 
Article
Peer-Review Record

Wide Field of View Under-Panel Optical Lens Design for Fingerprint Recognition of Smartphone

Micromachines 2024, 15(3), 386; https://doi.org/10.3390/mi15030386
by Cheng-Mu Tsai 1, Sung-Jr Wu 1, Yi-Chin Fang 2,* and Pin Han 1,*
Reviewer 1: Anonymous
Reviewer 2:
Micromachines 2024, 15(3), 386; https://doi.org/10.3390/mi15030386
Submission received: 6 February 2024 / Revised: 9 March 2024 / Accepted: 10 March 2024 / Published: 13 March 2024

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Please see attached review report.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

The authors have provided a work on the optical lens design for fingerprint recognition of LED smartphone, which sounds quite interesting. Before acceptance, some issues in the manuscript need to be addressed, as follows:

 

(1)    The introduction seems too brief, more discussions on the design on the wide-angle lenses should be done.

(2)    In equation (1), the effective focal length is F, not F’, please correct it.

(3)    In Table 1, for three wavelengths, it is better to label the “R, G, B” for each value, such as 430 nm (B)…

(4)    In Table 1, diagonal length should be Diagonal length

(5)    In Figure 2, each optical lens should be given a name

(6)    In equation (3), why the value of F/#w is set to 2.8?

(7)    Page 5, is COMS sensor is wrong?

(8)    What is the novelty of this work compared with others? And there is not any data supporting the title of LED smartphone.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most have been addressed except for

1. Some figures still do not have good clarity, such as FIGS. 4, 5, 6, 8

2. The font inconsistency remains , such as TAB 2

3. Figure 2 and 3 can be combined to a figure, labeled as (a) and (b)

 

Author Response

Comments and Suggestions for Authors

Most have been addressed except for

  1. Some figures still do not have good clarity, such as FIGS. 4, 5, 6, 8.

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion.

We have tried to make the Figures clear more, as shown in Figure 3,4, 5, and 7.

  1. The font inconsistency remains, such as TAB 2.

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion.

We have made the font of all Tables to be the ‘Palatino Linotype’ that is the template font for Micromachines.

  1. Figure 2 and 3 can be combined to a figure, labeled as (a) and (b)

Response: Thanks for reviewer’s suggestion.

We have combined Figure 2 and 3 to be Figure 2.

Back to TopTop