\documentclass[11pt,usletter]{article}
\usepackage{amsfonts}
\usepackage{amsmath} 
\usepackage{graphicx}
\usepackage{subcaption}
\usepackage{times}
\usepackage{upgreek}
\usepackage{adjustbox}
\usepackage{amssymb}
\usepackage{xcolor}
\usepackage{url}
\usepackage[top=1in,bottom=0.85in,left=1in,right=1in]{geometry}


\newtheorem{algorithm}{Algorithm}
\newtheorem{assump}{Assumption}


\renewcommand{\baselinestretch}{1.0}
\newcommand{\edit}[1]{\begin{center}\LARGE{Response to Editor's Comments}\vspace{-0.15in}\end{center}}
\newcommand{\revw}[1]{\begin{center}\LARGE{Response to Reviewer #1's Comments}\vspace{-0.15in}\end{center}}
\newcommand{\comm}{\bigskip \noindent \rule{6.5in}{0.5mm} \vspace{0.075in}\linebreak \textbf{Your Comment:~~}}
\newcommand{\resp}{\vspace{0.075in} \noindent \textbf{Our Response:~~}}
\newcommand{\norm}[1]{\left\lVert#1\right\rVert}
\newcommand{\abs}[1]{\left|#1\right|}
\newcommand{\pk}[1]{{\color{red}{\textbf{#1}}}}
\graphicspath{{figures/}}
\newcommand{\rev}[1]{{\color{blue}{\textbf{``#1''}}}}
 
 
 
 
 

\begin{document}
	
	
\newpage
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% EDITOR
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\edit

%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\comm 
The reviewers pointed out several important issues of the paper. In particular, the novelty of the proposed work should be better justified (as mentioned by Reviewer 1 and 2). Please discuss the uniqueness of the work in this paper in the context of related work and challenges, and properly explain the contributions based on the uniqueness. 
In addition, major assumptions used in the proposed work should be properly justified (as pointed out by Reviewer 1, 2, and 3). The performance evaluation part should also be strengthened.

\resp
Thank you very much for your effort on handling our manuscript. 
We appreciate it very much. 
We have carefully studied the reviewers' comments and revised the manuscript accordingly.
We provide a point-to-point response to the reviewers' comments below and hope that the reviewers would be satisfied with our revisions. 
In what follows, we highlight the novelty and contributions of our work in response to the main concern of Reviewer 1 and 2.


 
\noindent 
Demo video: \url{http://www.ece.louisville.edu/hzeng/spectrum_sharing.html}


\newpage
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% REVIEW 1
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\revw{1}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\comm 
This paper considered an underlay spectrum sharing for CRNs. The main points of this paper are to propose IC techniques at the secondary transmitter (used to design partial beamforming) and at the secondary receivers (used to detection and canceling the primary interference). After reviewing the paper very carefully, I believe that the contributions of the paper are not significant and the proposed method is lack of novelty. Please see my comments detailed in the following.

\resp
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript.
I would like to take this opportunity to address your concerns about this work's contributions and novelty.
Before doing so, we would like to point out that this paper is a system-level work aiming to solve the important problem of spectrum sharing in realistic scenarios.
Indeed, this is not a theoretical work aiming to explore the network capacity limits.




\newpage
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
% REVIEW 2
%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\revw{2}


%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%
\comm 
This paper considered an underlay spectrum sharing for CRNs. The main points of this paper are to propose IC techniques at the secondary transmitter (used to design partial beamforming) and at the secondary receivers (used to detection and canceling the primary interference). After reviewing the paper very carefully, I believe that the contributions of the paper are not significant and the proposed method is lack of novelty. Please see my comments detailed in the following.

\resp
Thank you very much for reviewing our manuscript.
I would like to take this opportunity to address your concerns about this work's contributions and novelty.
Before doing so, we would like to point out that this paper is a system-level work aiming to solve the important problem of spectrum sharing in realistic scenarios.
Indeed, this is not a theoretical work aiming to explore the network capacity limits.





\end{document}
