The paper deals with an interesting and important problem, namely the mechanism(s) resposible for oceanic mixing in a topographically-complex region.  The data have been processed satisfactorily and they show some interesting features, though the interpretation of these features is not straightforward.  My principal difficulty with the paper lies in the analysis of the data  and the validity of the conclusions drawn from such an analysis.  The heart of the analysis is the correlation of observed features of the diapycnal diffusivity patterns with the main causes of mixing identified by the authors.  Many of the correlations claimed by the authors seem to be based either on visual inspection of the data plots or analysis based upon ratios of the energy fluxes associated with each of the driving agencies (e.g Fig 4) .  I did not find these analyses convincing and I would have appreciated some more quantitative and rigorous data correlation procedures carried out to justify the conclusions.  Figs 6, 7 and 8 are very difficult to interpret.  Overall, I found the data analysis to be rather superficial and, in consequence,  the conclusions unjustified by the evidence of the data analysis.

There are a few typographic and/or grammatical errors but, in general, the standard of english is satisfactory.  The main error is to use "rates" instead of "ratios" in the correlation analyses (line 250 and elsewhere).  The use of "slopes" instead of "ratios"  (e.g line 319 and elsewhere) is misleading also (if I have understood the text correctly).  In equation (3) I assume that "acrcosh" should be "arccosh"?

The present manuscript describes spatial pattern and seasonal variability of the diapycnal diffusivities in the Philippine Sea. It was shown that seasonal variability was strong in winter and weak in summer at mid-latitudes, with the seasonal fluctuations more obvious in the upper ocean. The diapycnal diffusivitie that is spatially inhomogeneous were estimated from ARGO float data with the fine scale parameterization. The present manuscript is good scientific quality and well written.  The obtained results are interesting however revision is needed:

1.    More convincing comparison and analysis is needed for diapycnal diffusivities scatters fig 6-7. 

2.    As far as in fig 3 (diapycnal diffusivities) and fig 5 (Vertical structures of geometric averaged diapycnal diffusivities) Philippine Sea was divided for two zones (a) 10°N -25°N and (b) 25°N-35°N, but on figures 6-7 Philippine Sea was divided into three zones 10°N -15°N, 15°N-25°Nand 25°N-35°N it is difficult to compare the results for zone (10-25) and make a conclusions about that results on fig 6-7 is consistent with the results of Fig.3 and Fig.4. 

3.    In line 182  H is described as is the mixed-layer depth and was set to a constant 25m, however in Eq  (8) H(П) – near-inertial energy flux. 

4.     Typo in Figure 3 Seasonal cycles in diapycnal diffusivities (colorful line) and near-inertial energy flux from wind (green) extents to 250-500 m, 500-1000 m and 1000-1500 m in (a) 10°N -25°N and (b) 10°N-25°N (should be 25°N -35°N ).