Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Please see the attachment.

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

This paper is devoted to the tightly focused ring Pearcey beams with a cross phase. Properties of such a beams in the focus of the lens with high numerical aperture are discussed.  The influence of intensity distribution on the optical trapping of micro and nano particles is studied by analysis of the gradient forces produced by tightly focused CPRPB on the particles. There seem to be no glaring technical errors in the manuscript. However, there are major revisions in some parts of the paper I would recommend before the manuscript could be accepted for publication.

1) The paper lacks some important reference related to the research area:

https://doi.org/10.1103/PhysRevA.106.013509

https://doi.org/10.1364/OE.14.006316

10.1088/2040-8986/abb58f

 https://doi.org/10.1007/s11433-021-1767-5

2) On Fig. 2 the authors should give the phase for all components of the field.

3) How does the Pointing vector behave in the sharp focus of the beam?

4) To confirm the theoretical conclusions, it is necessary to present the results of an experiment on tight focusing of CPRPB.

5) Will the size and material of the particle affect the possibility of its optical trapping by such a beam.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 3 Report

Please see attached for my detailed review report. Good luck!

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have not corrected all the comments from the last review, ignoring the 2 most important of them.

1) An experimental study can really take a lot of time. Howevere, it is possible to indirectly confirm the findings by referring to the results of other authors.

2) The authors discuss the issues of optical manipulation and calculate the forces acting on the particle. However, it is not possible to fully consider the obtained results and their practical applicability without discussing such an important characteristic as the Pointing vector, which describes energy flows. I think the authors still should submit results on this issue.

 

3) In addition, Figure 4h appeared. However, there are no comment about it the caption of the Figure 

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 3 Report

The authors has spent significant efforts in improving the quality of the presentation as well as making modifications to the manuscript. The reply is also sufficiently detailed to justify the concerns I had. 

The paper is certainly of interests to the readership of Photonics and I am happy to recommend its publication.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Round 3

Reviewer 2 Report

The authors have not corrected all the comments from the last review, ignoring the most important of them:

2) The authors discuss the issues of optical manipulation and calculate the forces acting on the particle. However, it is not possible to fully consider the obtained results and their practical applicability without discussing such an important characteristic as the Pointing vector, which describes energy flows. I think the authors still should submit results on this issue.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.docx