  In a recent comment arxiv:1310.1503 Miller et al. noted that a cloak we
previously presented (Scientific Reports 3, 2328) that exploits a scattering
cancellation technique to render an optically small dielectric particle
invisible suffers from increased extinction. According to Miller et al. this
disqualifies the terminology of a cloak. We concur with the crux of the comment
but wish to stress that we never claimed nor suggested a reduction in
extinction. A scattering cancellation cloak cancels scattering. The issue,
therefore, seems to be whether the structure should be called a cloak or not.
We understand a cloaked object as an object that is not perceived by an
external observer. We argue that optically small particles are much easier seen
in a scattering configuration whereas it is difficult to perceive them in
extinction; providing justification to the terminology as used.
