On a quick glance claim 1 appears to be anticipated by any networked file sharing system that includes user permissions you'd possibly need to have 3 users with differing credentials for a novelty citation but there certainly doesn't appear to be an inventive step beyond mere citation of, say, a unix box with files with read/write flags and user:group credentials.

Claims 2-7 are just messages sent to a particular group.

Claim 8 refers to a "dropbox" file which, certainly in the UK, as a trademark wouldn't be allowed as it's inherently unclear.

Many of the claims are distinct only in non-technical details, eg the name attached to a specific role or the textual contents of a file. Such claims don't define the invention.

This strikes me as a very poor quality set of claims.

The clumsy wording of claim 39 "An method for providing online education method for a community of users in a network based system comprising the steps of:" suggests that no one at the USPTO read it.

As a B1 this is supposedly the patent "as granted".

Yeah; all the patent says is "anything the school and its student does over any network, that includes Internet".

That is in every quality typical of the patents granted and enforced in court every day in the USA. Pointing out that the claims were anticipated and are incoherent doesn't help much in front of a jury of laypeople.

Wow. Incredible.

Just wow....