Design of Dual Ultra–Wideband Band–Pass Filter Using Stepped Impedance Resonator λg/4 Short Stubs and T–Shaped Band-Stop Filter
Round 1
Reviewer 1 Report
The manuscript is very interesting and it is well-written. English grammar is good.
Please, add the numerical results of the paper in the abstract and the organization of the manuscript at the end of the introduction.
Author Response
- The manuscript is very interesting and it is well-written. English grammar is good.
Answer : Thank you for your compliment. Due to the short "revision" period, submit the revision first. However, English correctional experts are still reviewing English grammar. I will submit an updated version file with English grammar checked at the next revision opportunity. And I did my best to correct the point.
- Please, add the numerical results of the paper in the abstract and the organization of the manuscript at the end of the introduction.
Answer : Thank you for your advice. I added the numerical results in the abstract. I revised the introduction to the form of the paper. Please referred to 27-31 and 112-116 of words line number or yellow color at abstract and introduction.
Author Response File: 
Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 2 Report
This paper is presenting a wide dual-band bandpass filter that operates at two centered frequency bands. I strongly recommend removing the term UWB as the UWB frequency band is specifically allotted to the 3.1 to 10.6 GHz range by FCC. the title should be bandpass filter instead of UWB. UWB filters are already in the literature and operate in the whole 3.1 to 10.6 GHz range. This is one of the mistakes that I have also seen in published articles that need to be modified and addressed very carefully.
(1) In the abstract W-LAN should be WLAN.
(2) don't use acronyms in the abstract and please define them in keywords.
(3) Keywords should be in alphabetical order.
(4) Centered frequency ranges should be mentioned for all three passbands in the abstract.
(5) Abstracts are very short and did not cover the recent state of the arts in the field. It must be highly enhanced.
(6) It will be interesting if the formulation is correlated with the simulated results, any basic one. there will be losses of course in a simulated setup that need to be seen.
(7) Since SIR and SLR are very common techniques to be used for BPF. what is the main advantage of the current structure?
(8) The simulated and measurement result agree well. However, it is noteworthy that why the measurement result is shifted to lower frequencies. Usually, it is shifted to higher frequencies due to the extra milling of the board.
(9) comparison is performed well however recent and important recent filters are missing, that need to be compared. (a) A compact tri-band bandpass filter using two stub-loaded dual-mode resonators (b) A very compact quintuple band bandpass filter using a multimode stub-loaded resonator.
(10) what is the need for group delay as it is not used in the time-domain analysis.
(11) Remove grids from Figure 3(b).
(12) Magnify the prototype of the filter to be seen well.
(13) Equation (2) all should be in the same format. some fonts are different.
(14) all equations must be of the same size.
(15) equations taken from literature need to be referenced.
(16) Please improve grammar and typos by careful checking.
thanks and major revisions are recommended.
Author Response
- This paper is presenting a wide dual-band bandpass filter that operates at two centered frequency bands. I strongly recommend removing the term UWB as the UWB frequency band is specifically allotted to the 3.1 to 10.6 GHz range by FCC. the title should be bandpass filter instead of UWB. UWB filters are already in the literature and operate in the whole 3.1 to 10.6 GHz range. This is one of the mistakes that I have also seen in published articles that need to be modified and addressed very carefully.
Answer : Thank you for your good advice. I fully understood your opinion and revised the introduction completely.
Due to the short "revision" period, submit the revision first. However, English correctional experts are still reviewing English grammar. I will submit an updated version file with English grammar checked at the next revision opportunity. And I did my best to correct the point.
- (1) In the abstract W-LAN should be WLAN.
Answer : I modified the introduction. So, the WLAN added to the conclusion. And as you pointed out, I modified W-LAN to WLAN. Thank you.
- (2) don't use acronyms in the abstract and please define them in keywords.
Answer : I revised it as you pointed out. Please refer to abstract and keyword. Thank you.
- (3) Keywords should be in alphabetical order.
Answer : I revised it as you pointed out. Please refer to keyword. Thank you.
- (4) Centered frequency ranges should be mentioned for all three passbands in the abstract.
Answer : Thank you for your advice. I added the numerical results in the abstract. Please referred to 27-31 of words line number or yellow color at abstract. For your information, this filter is dual-band, not tri-band. Please bear that in mind. Thank you.
- (5) Abstracts are very short and did not cover the recent state of the arts in the field. It must be highly enhanced.
Answer : As you pointed out, I revised it based on the latest technique and added the purpose, method, and result of research. Thank you.
- (6) It will be interesting if the formulation is correlated with the simulated results, any basic one. there will be losses of course in a simulated setup that need to be seen.
Answer : Added equations (4)-(7).
- (7) Since SIR and SLR are very common techniques to be used for BPF. what is the main advantage of the current structure?
Answer : Conventional filters have increased the quantity of resonators to obtain sharp cut-off frequencies, which have the disadvantage of increasing the size of the filters. However, if SLR and SIR are used, the size and bandwidth of the filter can be adjusted by adjusting the impedance and stub length ratio. In addition, transmission-zero can be formed by changing the length of the stub. Therefore, a sharp frequency-blocking characteristic can be obtained. Refer to 45-52 (green) in the introduction word line number and 254-255 (green) in the word line number in the dissection.
- (8) The simulated and measurement result agree well. However, it is noteworthy that why the measurement result is shifted to lower frequencies. Usually, it is shifted to higher frequencies due to the extra milling of the board.
Answer : Of course, the filter should move to a higher frequency. However, there seems to be a slight error in the performance of the measuring equipment (internal process problem). I'm sorry. Please understand this.
- (9) comparison is performed well however recent and important recent filters are missing, that need to be compared. (a) A compact tri-band bandpass filter using two stub-loaded dual-mode resonators (b) A very compact quintuple band bandpass filter using a multimode stub-loaded resonator.
Answer : Thank you very much. I learned a lot from your advice this time. I revised the introduction completely through analysis. I sincerely thank you for giving me the opportunity to enlighten me. Please refer to the introduction.
- (10) what is the need for group delay as it is not used in the time-domain analysis.
Answer : I think I misjudged this data and put it in. So, I deleted the contents. Thank you for your comments.
- (11) Remove grids from Figure 3(b).
Answer : Thank you, I have removed the grids.
- (12) Magnify the prototype of the filter to be seen well.
Answer : Is this the filter you created (Figure 3(c)? As noted, I took a picture of the filter again and added it to Figure 3(c).
- (13) Equation (2) all should be in the same format. some fonts are different.
Answer : Thank you for your advice. I received the same format of equations.
- (14) all equations must be of the same size.
Answer : Thank you for your advice. I received the same format of equations.
- (15) equations taken from literature need to be referenced.
Answer : Thank you for your advice. I added references [15] which is added the Eq. (1) to (3).
- (16) Please improve grammar and typos by careful checking.
Answer : Yes, I checked and modified it. Thank you.
However, it is difficult to submit English proofreading documents within the revision submission period due to the very short revision time. But now my paper is being proofread by an English correctional expert. If you give me a chance, I will submit the English correction document during the next revision period. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Reviewer 3 Report
Design of dual ultra-wideband band-pass filter using stepped impedance resonator λg/4 short stubs and T-shaped band-stop filter :
The manuscript is about design of the base band filter with small size. The topic is interesting, and it is well-written. English grammar is good. The closed-form expression is established. On the other hand, the authors should improve the manuscript.
-In my opinion, the abstract is explanatory. You need to add the numerical results achieved by the proposed method in comparison with existing methods.
-It is very hard to recognize the contribution of the paper. It should be better to represent the contributions of the paper and the differences from the relevant studies with a separate paragraph or a subsection.
-The organization of the paper should be given.
-The authors should add the references similar studies.
Typos:
-The format of the Figure 1.(a) and Figure 1.(b) should be same. (i.e. not bold)
-The format of the Figure 2(a) should be checked.
Line 56: “ .On the one hand, the conventional ”
Author Response
- Design of dual ultra-wideband band-pass filter using stepped impedance resonator λg/4 short stubs and T-shaped band-stop filter : The manuscript is about design of the base band filter with small size. The topic is interesting, and it is well-written. English grammar is good. The closed-form expression is established. On the other hand, the authors should improve the manuscript.
Answer : Thank you very much for your interest.
I did my best to revise your opinion.
Due to the short “revision” period, submit the revision first. However, English correctional experts are still reviewing English grammar. I will submit an updated version file with English grammar checked at the next revision opportunity. And I did my best to correct the point.
- In my opinion, the abstract is explanatory. You need to add the numerical results achieved by the proposed method in comparison with existing methods.
Answer : As you pointed out, I revised it based on the latest technique and added the purpose, method, and result of research.
I added the numerical results in the abstract. Please referred to 27-31 of words line number or yellow color at abstract. Thank you for your advice.
- It is very hard to recognize the contribution of the paper. It should be better to represent the contributions of the paper and the differences from the relevant studies with a separate paragraph or a subsection.
Answer : I added Chapter 4 (discussion) to my paper and also added the characteristics and differences of the filter. Therefore, please refer to 248-255 (pink and green) of word line number of iscussion. And I added to chapter 5 conclusion about the characteristics, advantages and contributions of the filter. Please refer to the conclusion. Thank you.
- The organization of the paper should be given.
Answer : Thank you for your advice. I added the organization in the introduction. I revised the introduction to the form of the paper. Please referred to 112-116 of words line number or yellow color at introduction.
- The authors should add the references similar studies.
Answer : I added to [15] (Eq. (1)-(3)) and [30] (Eq. (4)-(7)). Thank you.
Typos:
- The format of the Figure 1.(a) and Figure 1.(b) should be same. (i.e. not bold)
Answer : You have edited the figure again. Thank you.
- The format of the Figure 2(a) should be checked.
Answer : You have edited the figure again. Thank you.
- Line 56: “ .On the one hand, the conventional ”
Answer : This part has been deleted ("On the one hand, the conventional") due to a full revision of the introduction. Thank you.
Author Response File: Author Response.pdf
Round 2
Reviewer 2 Report
Thank you for your careful revision.
All my concerns are met.
Reviewer 3 Report
The author answered all my questions. In my opinion the manuscript is acceptable.
