I am very grateful to the referee for careful reading of my contribution and valuable comments. I made all requested changes in the text. In particular,

Q1. In the abstract, the author states that ’Thus the LHCb result may signal a possible
existence of di-baryon molecules.’  Could the author clarify this statement?  Which
specific  result  are  you  referring  to?   As  of  now,  there  are  no  signal  candidates
identified as di-baryons.  Perhaps the author meant to suggest that the LHCb may
discover such hypothetical states in the future.  The author has to change write

R1. In the revised version, this reads "Thus a theoretical interpretation of the LHCb observation results in the prediction of a possible existence of di-baryon molecules formed by fully heavy baryons."

Q2. On the first page, the author mention that in Ref.  [1] "..., statisticallly significant (5sigma)" but the signal reported in Ref.  [1], is above five standard deviations.

R2. Corrected.

Q3. In the second page, the author wrote:  "observation precludes" has to be change to "observation could preclude"
There is a typo in Eq.  (3), 3..19

R3. To avoid confusion, the interval from 3 to 19 is now indicated using latex command \div.

Q4. There is typo in the following line of Eq.  3. "ration" has to be change to "ratio"

R4. Corrected. 

Q5. In the conclusions,  the author wrote "The conjenture of the molecular nature of X(6200) is found to be consistent with..." , the sentence is not clear, what do you
mean

R5. In the revised version, this sentense reads "The conjecture of the molecular nature of the $X(6200)$ is found to be plausible."