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".