Dear Editor,

We thank the referee for his/her very constructive criticisms.
Indeed, we have made several modifications following the 
referee’s suggestions and comments, which significantly improve our paper 
and, in particular, our analysis of leptogenesis. 

The modifications made are:

1) We have added a more constrained 99% CL limit on \theta_13, which 
   we have derived by perfoming a minimum chi^2 fit with respect to 
   theta_13. These type of fits will be discussed in an extended follow-up
   paper that we are now working on. We thought that, due to the importance
   of a prediction for theta_13, we should add this result also in this short
   letter.
 
2) We have added a couple of equation in the section on neutrino oscillation 
   parameters, which strengthen and demonstrates better the predictive power 
   of our model.  

3) We have dropped the discussion about Ansatz B from the paper.
We did that since this Ansatz does not fall into 
our criteria of quark-lepton similarity and, moreover, it is 
much less predictive e.g., with respect to leptogenesis since it predicts 
degenerate heavy Majorana masses which makes the CP-asymmetry more arbitrary. 
Thus, we came to the conclusion that there is no point to discuss it 
in this paper since it adds nothing to the point we are trying to make. 
   
2) Motivated by the referee’s comments, we have made several 
   significant modifications to the section on leptogenesis:
   a) We have dropped case II from this analysis, partly because we find now 
      (including a new derivation of the washout parameter – see below) 
	that this case is mostly not compatible with leptogenesis. In this respect 
      we note that case I (r~1) is the best fitted value for r, where the fit 
      is done with respect to the neutrino oscillation data. We, therefore, 
      think that, due to length limitations, analyzing only case I serves our 
      purpose of demonstrating the compatibility of the 3g2HDM with the observed 	baryon asymmetry. 
      As we have mentioned above, we are now working on a follow-up extended 
      paper in which we will make a much more detailed analysis of the 
      free parameter space involved. 

    b) As the referee suggested, we have elaborated on the derivation of efficiency        	factor \eta. The new discussion (using ref.10 as a guide) now includes 
	a calculation of the decay parameter in our model, from which a numerical 	estimate is derived for the efficiency factor \eta. The referee’s
	remarks regarding this point was indeed justified, since we have found that 	the 3g2HDM with our Anstaz falls into the “mildly strong washout regime”,    	giving \eta << 1. 
	As the referee pointed out, this makes leptogenesis in our model more robust 	since for such values of the decay parameter there is much less dependence on 	the initial conditions, as was pointed out in ref.10.
      (note, in that respect, that we have also dropped the sentence that said that 
	the N_1 decay must satisfy the out-of-equilibrium conditions, since we 
	agree its not relevant to our model and also, as the referee commented, its 	not a crucial demand for a successful leptogenesis.

    c) We have written down a new equation for the CP-asymmetry in terms of the 
       basic input parameters of our model. This gives our analysis and our 
       model a much more predictive power. 

Finally, we wish to note that our new results (having calculated the 
efficiency factor \eta) show that leptogenesis in our 2HDM is not 
in a significant variance with what is refereed to in the literature 
as “model independent” bounds on the CP-asymmetry and heavy Majorana 
masses. In particular, as mentioned above, case II which was in variance 
with those bounds is indeed found not to be compatible with the observed 
baryon asymmetry. Still, one should keep in mind that these “model independent” bounds refer 
to the case of a one-Higgs doublet, and so we expect some degree of variation from these bounds as one extends the Higgs sector. Indeed, the CP-asymmetry in 
case I is slightly larger than the usual bound. 
In the extended follow-up paper we will include 
several more items related to the interplay between our model and the leptonic sector. Thus, following the referee comment about the model independent 
bounds including the possibility of deriving similar model independent 
relations in two-Higgs doublets scenarios, which is clearly 
important for future investigations. We think that this issue 
is not critical for the point we are trying to make in the present short paper.    

With all the above modifications and improvements, mainly driven 
by the referee’s instructive criticism, we think that our paper 
is now appropriate for publication in PRL. 
The predictive power of our model and the new relations it predicts
(based on a very plausible grounds-up approach) 
between two very important findings of the 1990’s, i.e., non-zero 
neutrino masses and the huge top mass, can 
make a significant new contribution to the “burning” research on 
neutrino physics in a direction which was not yet explored. We thus think 
that our paper does meet the criteria for publication in PRL. We therefore 
ask the referee to reconsider our paper for PRL with the hope 
that it will now be accepted for publication. 
 
Sincerely yours,
The authors