Your paper is not being rejected because it is wrong. It is being rejected because it doesn't contain anything new. It's like, if I were to write a paper that proves that 2 + 2 = 4 (because 2 = 1 + 1 and 1 + 1 + 1 + 1 = 4), then that proof is not wrong, but it will also never be published.
This particular reject reason:
I was hoping that the authors could provide new contributions that would be useful to other researchers. This was not in the paper
Is very damning. As long as this this reason is true, most reputable journals will likely reject your paper.
You address this comment by adding more results. Superficial changes won't do it. You need either more analysis, more experiments, etc., or you need an argument as to why your paper does provide something new. The latter probably means a significantly rewritten introduction.
As it is, an appeal to this journal is likely to fail. You could try to submit to another journal, but it'll be important to fix the above objection first.
If the paper doesn't have new contributions, why then it enters to minor revisions with some normal comments?
It's hard to say without knowing the first decision letter or the contents of the paper. However, it's rather common for editors/reviewers to give the author a chance to address the raised issues. If for the first decision the reviewer had already expressed doubts about the novelty of the paper, then they might be expecting you to explain what exactly your contribution is in the revision. They might expect you to spell out exactly what you've done that's new. This is arguably a minor revision, because it's something you ought to know well already and so should be able to address quickly.
A minor revision decision is not a sign that your paper is going to be accepted. For example, I've given minor revision decisions before the formal review process even started, because the paper was written in incomprehensible English and the recommendation was for the authors to get it proofread by a native English speaker.