Per Aquathought's comments:

We don't know the exact 1072 nm LEDs. There are two so far that I have found in the US. Another person found another source in Britain. The expensive 1072nm infrared LED is the one you quote. We should be careful with that one. If you look at the amount of power it produces, and the neccesity of using a heat sink, and the fact that that one must use a fan to disperse heat, it's a llikely candidate. Recall that the helmet depicted requires three large cooling fans per helmet. There's no doubt this one light energy would penetrate the skull.

The alternative 1072 nm infrared LEDs have a power output perhaps 1/60 of the more expensive one. They do not require fans to operate, but just as a precaution, I recommended sitting in front of a fan while using them for cooling. You know how people are, they often over do it, and a high brain temperature could have serious reprocussions.

Until someone actually sees a helmet up close, or disassembles one, we're not going to know how it's constructed. We're simply trying to reverse engineer it from the patent, articles we've read, and applying our medical and electronic opinion and expertise.

You see the issues with trying to build one? I have mixed feeling sharing my answers, much less a schematic.

If it really does help, even at $400 it's extraordinarily cheap. Realize that all the parts you have listed do not include a dc power source, a circuit board to hold the array of LEDs (including resistors), and a housing to keep the whole thing from shorting out. If you're an electronics tech, you could probably easily build one from scratch, or simply follow my previous advice of purchasing an inexpensive array, and then substituting the proper LEDs with the correct wavelength. Actually, I believe you could make one for under $200 using the hints I posted.

Some people are trying to use different wavelength LEDs in an attempt to assist their neurological conditions. Imagine it this way... When you sit under a light, different results could occur. Light exists in many parameters. It has brightness, power, wavelength, etc. Taking a simple example, if you sit outside you are exposed to many wavelengths at once. If you sit indoors under an incandescent you exposed to a very short range. If you sit under a fluorescent, the light is actually flickering very rapidly, and at a different wavelength. If you sit under a ultraviolet light you can get a tan. You cannot just substitute one for the other.

The only information we have thus far is from ONE study and patent. They mention two beneficial ranges (1072, and another I believe in the ~1340 nm range). Good luck finding the later. If you don't want to waste your money you might:
a. wait until the test has been repeated by other researchers
b. try to get in a study (good luck)
c. try to get one made
d. do nothing but follow the medical protocol you're currently using.

Prudence dictates waiting as the most responsible method. If you have the technical capability, you might make one and be very cautious about its use. If you don't have the technical capability, you might find some friend who does. We cannot tell you exactly how to make one, it is obviously a closely guarded secret.

I'm sorry not to give out more information. I think a measured release of information is far more responsible than telling people how to make something, and then not knowing if they actually follow through the application. All self-made machines have the capacity for harm.