Round 1

Reviewer 1 Report

Thanks for working on SWB antenna....Is the title "novel of SWB" must be "novel SWB"...Similarly in the abstract F4B is used instead of FR4....Likewise the paper is full of such mistakes....authors need to be very careful specifically in title and abstract....

The literature of the manuscript is very poor and even very important and latest papers on UWB and SWB are missing....Authors are claiming tri notch antenna while there are lot of UWB/SWB antennas having triple and quad notch bands with the same technique....

The dimensions of reference [27] is 30mm*28mm, while the presented one is 34mm*57mm.... still in comparison table they show that [27] is 0.32lambda*0.34lambda while the presented one is 0.16lambda*0.27lambda..... How is it possible.....similar mistake is done for others as well, which is not fair....

Figure 11 is simulated while it is written that it is simulated vs. measured....Line 190....

The E and H-plane should be in the same plot and simulated one must be correlated with the measured one.... also the radiation pattern should be discussed in detail while must be shown atleast at 30GHz if you are claiming such a wider bandwidth.... Even rad pattern at 20GHz is deteriorated.....

Figure 6 simulated vs measured peak gain, is it some specific angle or realized one? Moreover show the points of gain measurements as well.

Simulation is taken till 90GHz while measurement is upto 50GHz....It means that your antenna is operating till 50GHz.... You cannot claim that my antenna is operating more than 90GHz as you have not validated it by measurements....Moreover show the network analyzer snapshots as well as the measurement looks very noisy.....It means authors have taken data at very limited points.....

Finally, the deigned antenna is not analyzed mathematically and there is no reasoning that how the bandwidth is enhanced.....I recommend the authors that please proper analyze your antenna and understand that how such a wideband is acheived....

The design of the SWB antenna is not novel and the creation of notch bands is performed using conventional techniques.... Similar, antennas are presented in the literature again and again....

Author Response

Responses to Editor and Reviewers’ Comments and Suggestions Dear   Reviewer, Thank   you for the reviews on our article:     Paper No.: electronics-420046     Paper Title: A novel SWB antenna with triple band-notches   based on Elliptical slot and Rectangular Split Ring Resonators First of all, we would like to record our   appreciation for the thoughtful, valuable and specific comments offered by   the reviewers to improve   the paper. We have carefully considered all their comments and have now completed the revisions   incorporating all of their suggestions in the revised manuscript. All   changes have been made by using different colors in the revised manuscript.
Thanks   for working on SWB antenna....Is the title "novel of SWB" must be   "novel SWB"...Similarly in the abstract F4B is used instead of   FR4....Likewise the paper is full of such mistakes....authors need to be very   careful specifically in title and abstract....	The   title has been modified according to the reviewer’s suggestion. In the   abstract we have mentioned that the designed prototype has been fabricated on   F4B substrate not on FR4 substrate. The permittivity is also mentioned for   F4B substrate is 2.65 and thickness of 1 mm. According   to the reviewer’s remark, the manuscript has been reviewed carefully to   remove the aforementioned mistakes.
The   literature of the manuscript is very poor and even very important and latest   papers on UWB and SWB are missing....Authors are claiming tri notch antenna   while there are lot of UWB/SWB antennas having triple and quad notch bands   with the same technique....	We   agree with this suggestion there many UWB antennas has been designed with   multiple notch characteristics but these antennas are unable to operate in the   SWB frequency range. Very   few SWB antennas has been designed for SWB application as mentioned in the   literature. But antenna either have single or dual notch characteristics or   they have large dimension size.
The   dimensions of reference [27] is 30mm*28mm, while the presented one is   34mm*57mm.... still in comparison table they show that [27] is   0.32lambda*0.34lambda while the presented one   is 0.16lambda*0.27lambda..... How is it possible.....similar mistake is   done for others as well, which is not fair....	In   design of SWB antennas the electrical dimension is based on the lowest   cut-off frequency. The mentioned dimension (0.32lambda * 0.34lambda is for   ref. [28]. The lowest cut-off frequency in [28] is 3.40 GHz while in our   designed antenna it is 1.42 GHz which is much smaller than [28]. The   calculation for [28] is given below. For   the proposed design the Calculation id given below
Figure   11 is simulated while it is written that it is simulated vs. measured....Line   190....	Yes   agree with suggestion, actually it is Figure 12 11 (a) is the   simulated and Figure 12 (b) is measured   results in the updated manuscript. Results.
The   E and H-plane should be in the same plot and simulated one must be correlated   with the measured one.... also the radiation pattern should be discussed in   detail while must be shown at least at 30 GHz if you are claiming such a   wider bandwidth.... Even rad pattern at 20GHz is deteriorated.....	Yes   in the revised manuscript the E and H plane patterns are plot in the one   figure for 10,20,30,40GHz.
Figure   6 simulated vs measured peak gain, is it some specific angle or realized one?   Moreover show the points of gain measurements as well.	Yes,   the gain has been measured at some specific frequencies. Antenna is measured at anechoic chamber at College of electronic and   information engineering. NUAA. In order to measure the radiation pattern and   gain of antenna. Chamber is calibrated by placing Standard Gain horn(SGH)   antenna at antenna positioner. After calibration Antenna is placed at same   location and keeping all other RF configuration fixed[1] automated software   calculates its accurate gain by dividing SGH’s with response of actual   antenna. Mathematically,        Here  is gain of   antenna and  is power   received when Antenna is placed and  is power   received when SGH is placed for calibration , is known gain   of SGH. [1] Muhammad Zubair   Rafique, Qunsheng Cao, Zhifeng Lian “Accuracy improvement for antenna   measurement in a noisy anechoic chamber using an artificially way”
Simulation   is taken till 90GHz while measurement is up to 50GHz....It means that your   antenna is operating till 50GHz.... You cannot claim that my antenna is   operating more than 90GHz as you have not validated it by   measurements....Moreover show the network analyzer snapshots as well as the   measurement looks very noisy.....It means authors have taken data at very   limited points..	According   to the reviewer’s suggestion we have updated the manuscript to consider the   antenna frequenct range and performance up to 50 GHz.
Finally,   the deigned antenna is not analyzed mathematically and there is no reasoning   that how the bandwidth is enhanced. I recommend the authors that please   proper analyze your antenna and understand that how such a wideband is achieved   ....	The   procedure to analyze the antenna has been explained in section 2. A numerical   simulation approach has been used in order to optimize the antenna bandwidth   by taking into account the reduction of the current path followed.
The   design of the SWB antenna is not novel and the creation of notch bands is   performed using conventional techniques.... Similar, antennas are presented   in the literature again and again....	The   main novelty of the paper is to combine the SWB performance with tri-notch   function. SWB antennas involve a bandwidth ratio greater than 10:1. Most   antennas in the literature are UWB antennas (involving a significantly lower  bandwidth ratio). Most SWB antennas in the   literature present no function to stop the narrow and operate for  lower frequency ranges.

Reviewer 2 Report

In this paper, the authors X. Zhang et al. propose a compact UWB monopole antenna. Overall the paper is well written and the results fair and sound. However I have the following minor comments and questions that need to be resolved before accepting it for publications:

1) Is a word missing (before "of") in the title ? It does not make sense as is.

2) I do not see the fig 5b) mentionned in the text line 89? Is there a missing figure or is it a reference to fig 5 ?

3) I would suggest to chose to speak of either S11 or returned loss for sake of simplicity. At least keeping the legend of the figures coherent between figures 2,5,8,9.

4) a corner of the SRR is out of the semi cicrcular patch in fig3.

5) For sake of completeness, can the authors provide the positions of the SRR in the table1/fig3 ? Ie the distance from the center of the feed and their vertical positions.

6) Why are there so few datapoints on Fig6, specifically for the measurements: I count only 8 datapoints ? And why >20GHz while most measurements go as high as 50GHz ?

7) Finally, Have the authors considered using additional SRR instead of ESRR for the noth at 3.4 GHz ? For instance, placed on the other side of the feed ? Why do they use specifically this ESRR ?

Author Response

Responses to Editor and Reviewers’ Comments and Suggestions Dear   Reviewer, Thank   you for the reviews on our article: Paper No.: electronics-420046       Paper Title: A novel SWB antenna with triple band-notches   based on Elliptical slot and Rectangular Split Ring Resonators First of all, we would like to record our   appreciation for the thoughtful, valuable and specific comments offered by   the reviewers to improve   the paper. We have carefully considered all their comments and have now completed the revisions   incorporating all of their suggestions in the revised manuscript. All   changes have been made by using different colors in the revised manuscript.
Suggestion In   this paper, the authors X. Zhang et al. propose a compact UWB monopole   antenna. Overall the paper is well written and the results fair and sound.   However I have the following minor comments and questions that need to be   resolved before accepting it for publications:
Comments	Response
1)   Is a word missing (before "of") in the title ? It does not make   sense as is.	We   agree with this suggestion. The title has been updated according to the   comment.
2)   I do not see the fig 5b) mentionned in the text line 89? Is there a missing   figure or is it a reference to fig 5 ?	Yes,   indeed it is Figure 5 not Figure 5b.
3)   I would suggest to chose to speak of either S11 or returned loss for sake of   simplicity. At least keeping the legend of the figures coherent between   figures 2,5,8,9.	Yes   agree with according to this suggestion in the revised manuscript for   simplicity the term S11 or return loss is mentioned.
4)   a corner of the SRR is out of the semi cicrcular patch in fig3.	The   elliptic slot has been etched out from the radiator for achieving the notch.   Its not out of patch but for simplicity we have considered three cases.
5)   For sake of completeness, can the authors provide the positions of the SRR in   the table1/fig3 ? Ie the distance from the center of the feed and their   vertical positions.	The   position has been mentioned. The resonator is place about 1.45 mm from the   center of feed line in x direction.
6)   Why are there so few data points on Fig6, specifically for the measurements:   I count only 8 datapoints ? And why >20GHz while most measurements go as   high as 50GHz ?	We   have measured the gain at some points to verify the simulated results and it   is measured up to 20 GHz because of available measuring device. It is observed   that the peak gain is increasingly linear with increasing frequency. This is   because at higher frequencies, the radiating patch dimensions are larger than   the corresponding wavelength.
7)   Finally, Have the authors considered using additional SRR instead of ESRR for   the notch at 3.4 GHz ? For instance, placed on the other side of the feed ?   Why do they use specifically this ESRR ?	ESRR   is the notch at 3.4 GHz while SRR is for achieving other two notches. In   this paper we have considered two type of resonator for the achieving notch   characteristics in the SWB range. We can also create notch resonance at 3.4   GHz with using other technique but with using other technique it was little   difficult to maintain the SWB frequency range with specific band rejection.   Therefore, we have employed a technique to etch out an elliptic resonator   from the radiator and to place the rectangular resonator near the feed line.

Reviewer 3 Report

The measurement setup should be detailed, including calibration procedures.

Several discrepancies exist between simulated and measured data, as represented in the figures.If due to the measurement setup or to the realization phase, this should be adequately described and commented.

Impedance should alternatively be plotted over a smith chart, since this is the most common way in circuit-oriented simulator (designers).

Resonance location and their sensitivity to parameter variation should be accounted and reported: how major resonsnce is affected by resonator parameters ?

Figures are too small to be useful, please enlarge and magnify insets (text contained is impossible to read).

Please correct the paper title omitting the 'of' before SWB and please spell check the entire manuscript

Author Response

Responses to Editor and Reviewers’ Comments and Suggestions Dear Reviewer, Thank   you for the reviews on our article: Paper No.: electronics-420046       Paper Title: A novel SWB antenna with triple band-notches   based on Elliptical slot and Rectangular Split Ring Resonators First of all, we would like to record our   appreciation for the thoughtful, valuable and specific comments offered by   the reviewers to improve   the paper. We have carefully considered all their comments and have now completed the revisions   incorporating all of their suggestions in the revised manuscript. All   changes have been made by using different colors in the revised manuscript.
Comments	Response
The measurement setup should be detailed, including   calibration procedures.	The   setup is described in Section 2, paragraph 2. Is consists of a Agilent Network analyzer model# N5245A as well as a calibration kit. Please   find attached the following figures. For S11 measurement, Keysight’s Network analyzer model#   N5245A is used . It is calibrated using mechanical toolkit 85056KE02 system   is calibrated. Only Port 1 is calibrated. Then antenna is connected to   measure its accurate response. Its IF bandwidth was 1kHz.It has measurement   uncertainties at  temperature 23° ±3   °C  is    magnitude ±0.008dB and ±0.054deg[#] Reference to fig one    highlighted area describes the types of calibration. C1 mean Caliberated port 1   Antenna is measured at anechoic chamber at College of   electronic and information engineering. NUAA. In order to measure the   radiation pattern and gain of antenna. Chamber is calibrated by placing   Standard Gain horn(SGH) antenna at antenna positioner. After calibration   Antenna is placed at same location and keeping all other RF configuration   fixed[1] automated software calculates its accurate gain by dividing SGH’s   with response of actual antenna. Mathematically,      Here  is gain of   antenna and  is power   received when Antenna is placed and  is power   received when SGH is placed for calibration ,  is known   gain of SGH. [1] Muhammad Zubair   Rafique, Qunsheng Cao, Zhifeng Lian “Accuracy improvement for antenna   measurement in a noisy anechoic chamber using an artificially way”
Several discrepancies exist between simulated and   measured data, as represented in the figures. If due to the  measurement setup or to the realization   phase, this should be adequately described and commented.	The   discrepancies between the simulation and experimental results can be   attributed to the manufacturing tolerances, quality of SMA connectors and   scattering measurement environment. Also during calibration the VNA network   analyzer show noisy within 35 GHz to around about 40 GHz.
Impedance should alternatively be plotted over a   smith chart, since this is the most common way in circuit-oriented simulator   (designers).	The   smith chart has been plotted the minimum impedance is about 20 ohm and   maximum is around about 50 ohm.
Resonance location and their sensitivity to   parameter variation should be accounted and reported: how major resonsnce is   affected by resonator parameters ?	Indeed the resonator’s  geometrical   parameters affect the resonance. Parametric study has been carried out in the   revised manuscript (see Fig.11)
Figures are too small to be useful, please enlarge   and magnify insets (text contained is impossible to read).	The   figures have been enlarged in the revised manuscript, according to the   reviewer’s comment
Please correct the paper title omitting the 'of'   before SWB and please spell check the entire manuscript	According   to the reviewer’s remark, it has been corrected.

 

Author Response File: Author Response.docx

Reviewer 4 Report

A SWB antenna is presented for 1.4GHz to 90GHz frequencies based on triple-notches. I have following comments for the authors:

The proposed antenna exhibits poor novelty. All the proposed techniques have been widely implemented in past, as expressed in the Introduction. In Table 2, notched based antenna in [6], [11]-[20] should be compered and the novelty should be figured out.

More theoretical aspects of the antenna and the notching circuits should be included.

More simulation analysis can be included for notching design and positions/placements on antenna and feeding areas. 

At least two more radiation patterns should be included for frequencies above 20GHz; at around 40GHz and 80GHz, to justify the antenna operation above 20GHz up to 90GHz.

In the abstract, use actual size instead of size in terms of λ (i.e. 0.16λ×0.27λ×1 mm^3), as your antenna is wideband

In Introduction para 2, use [1]-[9] instead of ‘[1]–[5], [6], [7], [8], [9]’. Also, discuss literature in the mentioned order i.e. [8] first and [10] later.

Measured realized gain in Fig. 6 should have more frequency points within 20GHz band

For taper feed, include more references including [ref1]

Antennas efficiencies should be discussed

In the title, remove ‘of’ form ‘A Novel of’.

 

 

[ref1]: Rabbani, M. S., and H. Ghafouri-Shiraz. "Simple methods for enhancing bandwidth of a rectangular microstrip patch antenna." In Active and Passive RF Devices Seminar, 2nd IET Annual, pp. 1-4. IET, 2014.

Author Response

Responses to Editor and Reviewers’ Comments and Suggestions Dear   Editor/Reviewer, Thank   you for the reviews on our article: Paper No.: electronics-420046       Paper Title: A novel SWB antenna with triple band-notches   based on Elliptical slot and Rectangular Split Ring Resonators First of all, we would like   to record our appreciation for the thoughtful, valuable and specific comments   offered by the reviewers to improve the paper. We   have carefully considered all their comments and have now   completed the revisions incorporating all of their suggestions in the revised manuscript. All changes have been made by   using different colors in the revised manuscript.
A   SWB antenna is presented for 1.4GHz to 90GHz frequencies based on   triple-notches. I have following comments for the authors:
Comments	Response
The   proposed antenna exhibits poor novelty. All the proposed techniques have been   widely implemented in past, as expressed in the Introduction. In Table 2,   notched based antenna in [6], [11]-[20] should be compered and the novelty   should be figured out.	The   main novelty of the paper is to combine the SWB performance with tri-notch   function. SWB antennas involve a bandwidth ratio greater than 10:1. Most   antennas in the literature are UWB antennas (involving a significantly   lower  bandwidth ratio). Most SWB   antennas in the literature present no function to notch the interference   bands and operate for lower frequency ranges.
More theoretical aspects of the antenna and the notching   circuits should be included.	The   design procedure with theoretical background of the wideband antenna has been   depicted in the figure 1. The notch resonances have been achieved by using   the ESRR and RRR. By using this technique the SWB frequency range is   maintained with band rejection. The dimension of the resonators control notch   resonance. The dimension has been calculated using given equation in   manuscript.
More simulation analysis can be included for notching design and   positions/placements on antenna and feeding areas.	Yes   in the revised manuscript parametric simulations have been carried out.
At least two more radiation patterns should be included for   frequencies above 20GHz; at around 40GHz and 80GHz, to justify the antenna   operation above 20GHz up to 90GHz.	More   radiation patterns have been included in the revised manuscript, according to   the reviewer’s suggestion.
In the abstract, use actual size instead of size in terms of λ   (i.e. 0.16λ×0.27λ×1 mm^3), as your antenna is wideband	We   have considered the standard literature way by including the electrical   dimensions of the antenna in terms of its wavelength at the lowest resonance   frequency. This point has been updated in the abstract
In Introduction para 2, use [1]-[9] instead of ‘[1]–[5], [6],   [7], [8], [9]’. Also, discuss literature in the mentioned order i.e. [8]   first and [10] later.	It   has been corrected, according to the reviewer’s remark.
Measured realized gain in Fig. 6 should have more frequency   points within 20GHz band	Due   to limited resources, the gain is measured in low frequency range with   frequency points to verify the simulated results.
For taper feed, include more references including	Yes it has been included in the revised   manuscript
Antennas efficiencies should be discussed	It   is included in the revised manuscript.
In the title, remove ‘of’ form ‘A Novel of’.	Yes,   it has been removed.

 

Round 2

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for your revision....

Please find the attached file for the detail comments and revise it accordingly....

Thanks

Comments for author File: Comments.pdf

Author Response

Paper No.: electronics-420046

Paper Title: A novel SWB antenna with triple band-notches based on Elliptical slot and Rectangular Split Ring Resonators

 

First of all, we would like to record our appreciation for the thoughtful, valuable and specific comments offered by the reviewers to improve the paper. We have carefully considered all their comments and have now completed the revisions incorporating all of their suggestions in the revised manuscript. All changes have been made by using different colors in the revised manuscript.

 

Original Comment: Black, Authors Response: Blue, Reviewer response: Red. (Please follow the red) and new response green

Old comment:  The literature of the manuscript is very poor and even very important and latest papers on UWB and SWB are missing....Authors are claiming tri notch antenna while there are lot of UWB/SWB antennas having triple and quad notch bands with the same technique....

Old Response: We agree with this suggestion there many UWB antennas has been designed with multiple notch characteristics but these antennas are unable to operate in the SWB frequency range. Very few SWB antennas has been designed for SWB application as mentioned in the literature. But antenna either have single or dual notch characteristics or they have large dimension size.

New Comment: As recommended that due to space permitting please introduce further

references so that reader may understand the background well. Regarding SWB antenna I believethat the references provided are enough but on band-notched UWB antenna it did not provide any proper insight. I will recommend that please provide quad, and Penta(Quintuple) bandnotched antennas in this regard. Also mention that these antennas only operate in the UWB and the presented one operate in SWB as well. Recently, I have seen some structures published in this regard and some of them are for the info. Of authors are: (Sensors 17(10):2174), (Electronics letters 47, 19 (2011): 1062-1063), (Sensors 18(3):911), (AEU, 83 (2018): 470-478). Authors can search in this regard and provide a superiority in terms of results over all of these. This will understand and highlight the novelty in a better way.

 

New Response: Yes agree with this suggestion and we include the same references and clearly mentioned that these antennas only operate in the UWB frequency range.

 

(2) The dimensions of reference [27] is 30mm*28mm, while the presented one is

34mm*57mm.... still in comparison table they show that [27] is 0.32lambda*0.34lambda

while the presented one is 0.16lambda*0.27lambda..... How is it possible.....similar mistake is done for others as well, which is not fair....

Response: In design of SWB antennas the electrical dimension is based on the lowest cut-off

frequency. The mentioned dimension (0.32lambda * 0.34lambda is for ref. [28]. The lowest cut-off frequency in [28] is 3.40 GHz while in our designed antenna it is 1.42 GHz which is much smaller than [28].

 

New Comment: I agree now but please introduce it in the manuscript. It will help the reader to understand it and calculate that how calculation and comparison is taken out.

 

New response: It has been introduces in the revised manuscript that will be helpful for the readers and highlighted with red color.

 

(3) Simulation is taken till 90GHz while measurement is up to 50GHz....It means that your

antenna is operating till 50GHz.... You cannot claim that my antenna is operating more than

90GHz as you have not validated it by measurements....Moreover show the network

analyzer snapshots as well as the measurement looks very noisy.....It means authors have

taken data at very limited points..

Response: According to the reviewer’s suggestion we have updated the manuscript to consider the antenna frequency range and performance up to 50 GHz.

New Comment: Thank you for understanding. Now it make sense and looks good all over the

manuscript. All plots has been updated accordingly.

 

New response: Thank you for your important suggestions.

 

(4) Finally, the deigned antenna is not analyzed mathematically and there is no reasoning that how the bandwidth is enhanced. I recommend the authors that please proper analyze your antenna and understand that how such a wideband is achieved.

 

Response: The procedure to analyze the antenna has been explained in section 2. A numerical simulation approach has been used in order to optimize the antenna bandwidth by taking into account the reduction of the current path followed.

 

New Comment: I did not see any change in section 2. Please highlight it properly in the next revision. If you think that developing mathematical model is not achievable then you can at least provide the physical insight of that in a separate paragraph with a detailed discussion. I still feel the same and did not find any insight for that in the revised version.

 

New response: We agree with that there is no mathematical expression for bandwidth enhancement but we have employ the techniques as used by other researchers. It has been mentioned in section 2 that lowest resonance is dependent on the longest current path followed. That’s why first we have considered rectangular patch, with rectangular ground and rectangular feed line as shown in figure 1 (a) (antenna1) and its simulated results are depicted in figure 2. Then radiator is modified to trapezoid and ground to semicircular as shown in figure 1 (b) antenna 2 and figure 1 (c) antenna 3 similarly their results are depicted in figure 2. It is observed that the monopole antenna with trapezoid shape radiator and semicircular ground has comparatively better matching performance from the rectangular shape. Finally, the feed line is modified to tapered feed line and its results are shown in figure 2 antenna 4. The final design has best matching performance.   

 

 

Reviewer 3 Report

ok for me

Author Response

Again  we would like to record our appreciation for the thoughtful, valuable and specific comments offered by the reviewers to improve the paper. We have carefully considered all their comments and have now completed.

Reviewer 4 Report

The comments have been addressed, the papers seems fine to me for acceptance.

Author Response

Again  we would like to record our appreciation for the thoughtful, valuable and specific comments offered by the reviewers to improve the paper. We have carefully considered all their comments and have now completed.

Round 3

Reviewer 1 Report

Thank you for revision. some minor things need to be corrected.

Reference [23] Please correct the title and it is quad notched so please mention it in line 52 as [21-[23]. correct title and num is "A Compact Multiple Notched Ultra-Wide Band Antenna with an Analysis of the CSRR-TO-CSRR Coupling for Portable UWB Applications. Sensors, 17(10), 2174."

Line 94: Please Change return loss to reflection coefficient. you can check this report as well: (Definition and misuse of return loss)

Line 113: Change"Where λ is with respect to the lowest resonance freq" to "where λ signifies the lowest resonance freq". Also Line 114 place . after equation(1).

Line 120: Rewrite as "The Smith chart has been plotted in Figure 7(d), where the  minimum and maximum impedance is around 20 and 50 Ohm, respectively.

In Table 2 follow the ascending order.

Author Response

First of all, we would like to record our appreciation for the thoughtful, valuable and specific comments offered by the reviewer to improve the paper. We have carefully considered all their comments and have now completed the revisions incorporating all of their suggestions in the revised manuscript. All changes have been made by using different colors in the revised manuscript.

Reference [23] Please correct the title and it is quad notched so please mention it in line 52 as [21-[23]. correct title and num is "A Compact Multiple Notched Ultra-Wide Band Antenna with an Analysis of the CSRR-TO-CSRR Coupling for Portable UWB Applications. Sensors, 17(10), 2174."

Reply,  Yes it has been corrected according to comments. Thanks to reviewer to mention such mistake.

Line 94: Please Change return loss to reflection coefficient. you can check this report as well: (Definition and misuse of return loss)

Reply, Yest it has changed.

Line 113: Change"Where λ is with respect to the lowest resonance freq" to "where λ signifies the lowest resonance freq". Also Line 114 place . after equation(1).

Reply, Yest it has been changed

Line 120: Rewrite as "The Smith chart has been plotted in Figure 7(d), where the  minimum and maximum impedance is around 20 and 50 Ohm, respectively.

Reply, Yest it has been rewritten.