A 13.56 MHz Low-Power, Single-Stage CMOS Voltage-Boosting Rectifier for Wirelessly Powered Biomedical Implants

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The structure and performance of the proposed circuit of the rectifier for wireless power transmission for the purpose of biomedical implantats is good. However, it is not the best result compared to the proposed FoM, chip size, output power, etc. A more reasonable explanation needs to be supplemented. That is, FoM should be proposed and analyzed based on the key performance required for biomedical implantat applications.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The article proposes a single-stage active voltage boost rectifier used in an implantable biomedical microsystem.

- It would be useful to discuss some design considerations. For example, how was the value of CLoad chosen? The authors only say (lines 183 -184), "For better comparison of the designed circuit with similar works, the output rectified voltage of the proposed design with and without comparators has been demonstrated in Fig. 8." Moreover, there are no calculations to prove what rectifier's parameters should be achieved. 

- How was the power efficiency calculated? 

- How can be verified the presented simulation results? Analytical dependencies are not presented.

The paper shows the results of a Monte Carlo analysis. What individual distribution laws are defined in the Monte Carlo analysis?

Line 191 - S45%? Please, check if it is correct.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

1. It is necessary to write an Abstract in accordance with the requirements for this part of the article.

2. Introduction contains too little information related to WPT/IPT. The review of the literature is very small. Please refer to the following in the Introduction: down: https://www.mdpi.com/1996-1073/15/1/115

3. In the literature you can find many articles related to the discussed topic. It is a pity that the authors did not enrich this part of the article.

4. It is necessary for the authors to refer to their previous works that are related to the topic to show the development of the method.

5. The formula (1) entered in the introducton contains fundamental errors. This should be a simple multiplication, not a vector one.

6. It is necessary to correct many drawings. In the drawings there are symbols written in a simple font and in the formulas they are in italics, i.e. correctly. Also, the authors commonly use the vector factor, which is not needed.

7. Some result drawings have no description or are very small. It is necessary to highlight important conclusions and results in the work.

8. Figures 15-17 have a coarse mesh. It's worth thickening it.

9. It is necessary to describe the model and conditions related to the simulation. What method, boundary conditions, program, parameters related to the numerical description.

Moderate editing of English language required.

Author Response

"Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

I accept the edited version of the article.

I would like to point out line 250 - "cadence" should be "Cadence".

Reviewer 3 Report

I have no comments. Thank you.

Moderate editing of English language required.