Response to reviewer comments

To the editor,
We sincerely thank the reviewers and editor for the opportunity given to revise our paper also we are
grateful for their constructive criticisms and valuable comments, which were a great help in revising the
manuscript. Accordingly, the revised manuscript has been systematically improved with new
information and additional interpretations. Please find below the detailed answers to all comments.
Moreover, the changes have been carried out as suggested in yellow, red, and green colors in the revised
paper.

Reviewer #1:
Response to reviewer #1: Dear reviewer, we wish to thank you for your constructive comments in
this first round of review. Your comments provided valuable insights to refine its contents and analysis.

Reviewer #2:
Response to the reviewer #2: Dear reviewer, thank you for bringing this matter to our attention. We
are regretful that we failed to meet your expectations. We would appreciate another chance to earn your
appreciation.
→ Comment 5:
How these iterations as shown in figure 2 are producing multiple resonances?
→ Response to comment 5
The subsequent alteration to the patch divides the primary current flow into a number of secondary
directions, which in turn produces various resonators, resulting in multiband operation.

→ Comment 7:
From figure 7, gain at 1.84GHz and 3.5GHz is negative. Justify how this negative gain antenna is
advantage?
→ Response to comment 7
Negative gain indicates that the antenna has significant losses in that direction. the transmit power
will be significantly reduced in that direction, approaching negative gain.

→ Comment 8:
Radiation efficiency at 1.84GHz and 3.5GHz is decreased. Discuss on this
→ Response to comment 8
The antenna gain is a function of both its directivity and radiation efficiency, thus if gain declines,
efficiency also declines.
 Reviewer #3:
Response to reviewer #3: Dear Reviewer, we appreciate your critical feedback throughout the first
round of review. Your comments provided valuable insights to refine its contents and analysis. We have
attempted to address the issues stated as best we can in this text. The following are our responses:

→ Comment 8
Fig.4 exhibits the fabricated prototype, why the antenna is not fully grounded? There is a
horizontal gap line with narrow width, the impact of this gap line can be elaborated? In Fig.1, please
add a photo of the simulated layout from back side as well.

→ Response to comment 8
The partial ground plane removal minimizes the back lobe radiation by preventing surface wave
diffraction from the antenna ground plane's edges.
The resonant frequency is moved to the lower side when the gap line is integrated into the resonator
and expands in size electrically