  Preceding Comment challenged my claim that potentials might be just auxiliary
mathematical tools and that they are not necessary for explaining physical
phenomena. The Comment did not confront my explanation without potentials of
the Aharonov-Bohm effects appeared in the original paper, but stated that I
cannot apply this explanation for seven other examples. In my reply I provide
explanations using my method, of one of the examples, show that two other
example are not relevant, and agree that the remaining examples require further
analysis. However, I argue that none of the examples provide robust counter
examples to my claim similar to the original Aharonov-Bohm setups which were
explained in my Paper, so the Comment does not refute my claim.
