Review Reports

Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

The paper presents a design of a 0.18μm CMOS millimeter wave antenna-on-chip with artificial magnetic conductor design. The BW performance is good. But there are some comments are also mentioned as follows:

1. The English of the paper should be revised carefully. (Very important!)

2. The paper without measured radiation patterns is a serious problem, please deal with it.

3, the case is a small size. Therefore, the efficiency of the design should be examined in the paper.

4, the use of an AMC of the paper is not novel and significant. Design concept and characteristics of the AMC is not addressed in the paper.

5. The design of microstrip antenna is no need for showing the paper. A new design concept should be included in the paper.

6. The BW of the AMC can meets the required BW of the antenna? Please prove it.

7. The design with broad band effect. The radiation patterns with different frequencies should be investigated.

English of the paper should be effective improved.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

 

  In this paper a small-size, broadband, monopole chip antenna for a millimeter wave band is proposed. The device is simulated, fabricated and measured. The paper is well organized and can be consider for publications after some modification, which are listed as follows:

 

1-Size of the proposed antenna should be reported in lambda in table and text. Especially in Table 3, which size of the proposed antenna compared with other works with different operating frequencies, which to have fair comparison all reported size should be reported in lambda.

 

2-There are significant differences between measured and simulated results. Foe example as seen in Fig.15, there is more than 20dB difference near 70 GHz. Provide explanations about these difference and add explanations about measurement conditions. If possible provide device under test photo and measurement setup using Keysight N5291A vector network analyzer.

 

3-It seem that dimensions of the proposed antenna-on-chip, which reported in Table2 are not correct. This table should be revised carefully. For example as seen in Fig.3, L9 is larger than L8, but in Table 2 both of these line have same value of 50um.

 

4-In Fig.2. sub-section (b) the letter “b” is missed, should be added.

 

5- Fig.1 and Equations 1-5 are general, which should be cited.

 

6- In Table3, the FBW value is reported 103.4%, which should clearly reported in the text. Provide operating bandwidth of the proposed device and highlight this operating band in the curve clearly.

7- The 5G NR FR2 band and W-band, which fit with the frequency range of the proposed chip antenna should be clearly explained in the text.

The Quality of English Language is good and Minor editing of English language is required.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

The authors almost replied the comments. However, there are some comments should be revised and addressed properly.

1. From the results shown in Fig. 2(b), it is obvious that the bandwidth of the AMC cannot meet the required BW of the antenna. That is also shown in the gain drop or efficiency drop away from the center frequency designed at AMC. Please address it in manuscript.

2. The all english of the manuscript should be refined.

Refine the English of the manuscript is expected.

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf

Reviewer 2 Report

The paper can be Accepted in present form

Author Response

Please see the attachment.

Author Response File: Author Response.pdf