There are a few points that have to be considered here.
First, a reviewer will usually not see an authors response to their review except if the reviewer has accepted to review also the (major) revision and the manuscript is not accepted after the revisions. This means such a response has no audience and editors will not typically convey such messages between author and reviewer.
Second, All reviews and rebuttals pass an editor, with the explicit exception of an open review (visible online), which occurs in a few journals. So for the most part the response you provide should be directed to the editor. It is perfectly fine to tell the editor you really appreciate the reviewers comments but that will most likely not reach the reviewers as pointed out above.
Third, most authors provide an acknowledgement in their published papers and it is in most, or at least many, circles considered polite to thank reviewers in the acknowledgement. A common phrase could be that "the manuscript was improved by the [insightful] reviews by X and y [or: the anonymous reviewers]" or something along those lines. The square parentheses indicate places where alternatives are necessary depending on ones view of the reviews. There is no need to involve very complicated thanks here as has also been pointed out in other replies. Simple and straight forward is better.
As a final point, the quote you provide stating that "My concerns have been addressed satisfactorily and the paper is acceptable." is not what I would consider an overwhelmingly positive response and your thanks should be written with this in consideration. If someone says the manuscript is just ok but publishable, a response glorifying the review and the effect of the review will certainly seem odd from all perspectives. So make sure there is a match between the "verdict" and your "thanks". Keeping it simple and non-convoluted is always a good reciepe.