Second revision, one of the reviewers said I should completely rewrite paper with new ideas and methods, because it is not innovative
Based on your comment, I understand that the reviewer doubts the novelty of your work, without specifying details (previous works achieving the same or something very similar as your work).

This kind of feedback is essentially worthless, and should not influence the decision on your paper (if it's a sane editor).

I recommend the following strategy: Systematically address all other reviewer feedback and, based on your revisions, write a strong author response letter. Regarding the criticism of novelty, include a response among the following lines in your response letter:


  To our knowledge, our work is the first to achieve X. We discuss the novelty of our work in comparison to related work in section Y of the paper. We would appreciate any pointers to additional works which should be considered in our discussion.