Lovrincic 1 criticizes our paper 2 on two grounds, which we will address in this response. The argument made by Lovrincic, which we have proposed a better model or a better curve fit than the Drude-Smith (DS) model, misses the essence of our paper, and its goal and objectives. The goal of the paper was not to get a better curve fit but to formulate a physical model that can explain the observations in the case of nanomaterials. In a different manner, can we use our current understanding on tunneling or hopping between grains and come up with a model that can explain the observations on terahertz optical conductivity? It is not to do better than the Drude-Smith model. The goal of the paper and its scientific contribution were recently summarized in an independent review where Lloyd-Hughes and Jeon were able to show that our model can be made to match the DS model, and provide a reasonable alternative …